×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

Why 'Ready'? (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110694)

Why did they choose the 'Ready' prefix for everything? It seems that using 'Hyper' would have actually been a little more descriptive AND cooler sounding. I mean, HyperBoost, HyperBoot, and HyperDrive? Those sound so much better. And I thought these guys were supposedly big into marketing...

Re:Why 'Ready'? (4, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110730)

Because, damnit! The guy holding the chair kept yelling at them and wanting to know when it will be ready? They changed the name and he put the chair back on the floor!

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110780)

well that's simple. Hyper would imply that it's fast. They try and make most of the Ready features sound fast but they're BARELY faster than XP. The features that use USB flash drives for example are limited to a max read speed of 10 MB/sec (and that's on a well built one) compared to like 80+ on an internal SATA drive. It's sooooo slow to read data off a flash drive, I don't know why they're even using one for anything that's supposedly fast. Thus the Ready instead of Hyper.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

d!rtyboy (969507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110914)

Yea, that what I was wondering what the point of using a USB device as RAM? The only reason I can think of is Vista's ridiculous hardware requirements. They know at least 60% of computer users(I know 95% of my friends don't) don't even have a system that could handle Vista so they came up with this half baked "solution" which doesn't even really work well.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (5, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111248)

No seek time. That's the main benefit over a hard drive. If you need lots of data, it's not that great. But if you just need a few bytes, it'll be faster than asking the hard drive. Ask the USB stick for the first few bits of a page, and the hard drive for the rest, and you get the best of both worlds.

At least, that's how I'd design it if I were much of an engineer ;)

Re:Why 'Ready'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111534)

this is just a test

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111388)

Does it work with FIRE WIRE disk / flash driver as they have less cpu over head. Way has no one came out with a pci based ram disk card with out higher cost of battery back up for use as a high speed temp disk?

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111772)

The funny thing is that Linux has been capable of something similar for years.

If you format a flash drive as a linux swap partition, you can tell the kernel to use the flash drive for swap.

I'd like to test to see if this is worthwhile on modern flash drives, but I don't know how to benchmark swap.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (4, Informative)

Molt (116343) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111328)

Hard disks are faster than Flash RAM for raw transfer speed, but the idea here is to use the Flash to cache small frequently-read files where the hard disk's latency and seek time would be the limiting factor.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

dbatkins (958906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110800)

Hyper is not nearly as kewl as extreme, no no Xtreme. Don't they know everything is "extreme" these days?

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110954)

Everything was "eXtreme" hence XP. They jumped on that bandwagon 6 years ago.

Hyper was 3 years ago and 'Ready' is so 90s.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (2)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111306)

If Hyper was 3 years ago, does that mean HyperCard was ahead of its time?

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111862)

You are forgetting about the reality distortion field. When viewed through the JRDF, things are either innovative and timely, or they never happened. Thus, Hypercard never happened, but may at some point in the future become timely and innovative, like it was before it ceased to exist.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18110828)

They should have gone the Linux route and named everything GBoost, GBoot, GDrive, etc. Better yet use just meaningless names like UbuntuBoot.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (1, Insightful)

Erchie (103202) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111516)

...just meaningless names like UbuntuBoot


Ubootu would be even better. I think I'll suggest that to Canonical, Ltd. (This is being written on Kubuntu.)

Re:Why 'Ready'? (4, Funny)

MidVicious (1045984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110920)

Well, they Microsoft was gonna go with 'Hyper', but after frequent crashes, one employee, a Star Wars fan, put on a clip from Empire Strikes Back.

"Prepare to make the jump to lightspeed. If Lando's people fixed the HyperDrive."

"Punch it!"

*cough*sputter*cack*hack*pzzzsst*

"That can't be. They told me they fixed it! It's not my fault!"

Lightspeed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111464)

"Prepare to make the jump to lightspeed. If Lando's people fixed the HyperDrive."

That's why Vista is so slow. They should have gone with Ludicrous Speed.

Re:Why 'Ready'? - More Absorbed IP (3, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111160)

Because they swiped it from Commodore. Light Out, MS.

Poke 53280,0
Poke 53281,0

Ready.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (0, Troll)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111476)

Proving that, given no fodder, ./'ers will still find something to bitch about when it comes to Windows.

Re:Why 'Ready'? (5, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111608)

Now if they only had NeverCrash, QuickBoot, HackSafe, SkinnyRAM, and DontNeedAFuckingDirectX9VideoCardToRun ;)

Is this secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18110732)

What are the security implications of caching random disk data on a USB flash drive? If that drive is removed and plugged into another system, what data will be compromised?

Re:Is this secure (5, Informative)

atarione (601740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110774)

yeah it is secure

http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive/2006/06/02 /615199.aspx [msdn.com]

 

Q: Isn't user data on a removable device a security risk?
A: This was one of our first concerns and to mitigate this risk, we use AES-128 to encrypt everything that we write to the device.

Re:Is this REALLY secure? (2, Informative)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111488)

Instead of just assuming that the AES-128 is the golden key that locks cached data, please consider that their implementation may be lacking.

For example, where are they storing the encryption key? It's certainly on the PC somewhere accessible to all for now.

Security programming is hard, really hard. I don't doubt that Microsoft has very gifted security programmers, but I very much doubt that they were given free reign. Most likely they were forced to implement managerial compromises that, well, compromise the system security.

Also consider the CPU cycles required to do the encrypting/decrypting and that this is just one of MANY tasks the OS is doing with encryption-bound services. Those are just two factors that hardly constitutes speedy/secure anything.

Re:Is this REALLY secure? (0, Flamebait)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111582)

It's far, far more likely that you are an unmitigated idiot.

The ONLY reason to encrypt the cache is because it's on a removeable drive. As long as the key is kept in memory, it's secure. And whether MS implemented AES on their own or purchased a 3rd-party implementation, there is only your bigotry to suggest that it would be any more flawed than anyone else's.

FUD at its finest (0)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111590)

Pure FUD.
You have ZERO evidence that there is a security risk here, yet that didn't stop you from spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Complain about *real* issues, not your delusional fantasies.

Re:Is this REALLY secure? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111640)

For example, where are they storing the encryption key?
I would imagine in RAM, in ring-0, so it's lost when you reboot (it's just a cache, so it doesn't matter if it's unrecoverable) and it should be impossible for a userspace process to get at it while the system is running.

Also consider the CPU cycles required to do the encrypting/decrypting and that this is just one of MANY tasks the OS is doing with encryption-bound services.
A modern CPU can execute around 300 million instructions per hard disk seek. AES decrypting a block of data is trivial next to that. This is why ZFS adds a SHA hash to every block; it's a tiny overhead on a modern CPU.

Re:Is this REALLY secure? (1)

atarione (601740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111656)

well if you already have access to the PC.... you don't really need the encryption key anyway...

if on the other hand you find the USB flash drive laying on the ground.... cause someone dropped it... the key residing somewhere on the HD of the person that dropped the flash drive isn't really going to help you get at the information on it.

obviously the encryption/decryption is going to entail "some" overhead... if they had implemented it with out encryption it would doubtlessly be faster and of course terribly insecure..... but the benchmarks i've seen suggest that w/ readyboost load times improve (well on systems w/ 512MB,1GB, or 2GB...systems w/ 4+GBs dosn't do much for) vs not having ReadyBoost

Re:Is this secure (1)

DelawareBoy (757170) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110788)

No..

Per PDC 2005, the information on the USB Flash drive (or any Readyboost device) is encrypted, likely using the same encryption scheme that is used with BitLocker.

Re:Is this secure (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111782)

Well, secure is relative. Will it keep out your neighbor? That depends on who your neighbor is: a pimple faced, socially awkard, teenager that spends his spare time turning toasters into Linux boxen or a grandmother who can't seem to access voice mail on her new "modular" telephone? Considering that encryption is AES 128, it may be compromised by one of the two types of neighbors. Beware of the grannie, I'd say.

ReadyBoost (1)

dcskier (1039688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110798)

From TFA: Flash memory, however, is generally cheaper and can service random reads up to 10 times faster than a typical hard disk. Windows Vista, therefore, includes a feature called ReadyBoost to take advantage of flash memory storage devices by creating an intermediate caching layer on them that logically sits between memory and disks. ... When you insert a flash device like a USB key into a system....

Seems a bit odd to have to insert a usb key to enable this feature. Are any manufactures putting flash memory on the motherboard to support this feature?

Re:ReadyBoost (2, Interesting)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110832)

This, combined with H-HDD mentioned later on in the article, seems to cancel themselves out.

Re:ReadyBoost (2, Interesting)

atarione (601740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110842)

yeah I saw some ASUS board that had 256MB flash memory onboard for this application (readyboost) reviewed..but I can't remember which model......but I imagine more MB may add this feature as Vista takes off.

Re:ReadyBoost (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111412)

Can I use a i-ram disk with this? as there it would be nice way to reuse your old ddr ram in a ddr2 system. Or even make use of the smaller ram sticks that you tack out where you put bigger ones in.

Re:ReadyBoost (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111684)

I don't think it's odd at all. In fact, I think it's a great idea. Lots of people have extra flash thingies hanging around, and most new machines come with ungodly numbers of USB ports (I just got a refurbished Dell Optiplex, and it has *8* USB ports!). When I get home to play with my GF's new Vista laptop, I'm going to throw in the few flash drives I have lying around and see if it makes a difference. If it does, then I'll probably just get some cheap (or free) flash drives, and stick 'em all in, since the things are damn near free promotional items now, and laptop ram is still very expensive.

Managed code in the kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18110810)

Has Microsoft started to use managed code within the kernel itself? It's understandable that some portions of the kernel could never be written using managed code, but some of the higher-level components could be. Now, it wouldn't be an easy task by any means, and it would likely result in further performance issues, but the security gains could be significant.

Where's the Beef? (5, Interesting)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110862)

With all these performance-improving things, shouldn't performance actually, you know, be improved?

Many have fallen into the trap of building "intelligent" cache systems that perform worse than the "dumb" cache systems. Remember, every MB of RAM caching an app that you might use is not caching part of the photo that you are editing; caching is subtle work.

So, as I have not used Vista and have no plans to (I'm with Linux), a question: Can anybody tell me that they put Vista on their computer and things are now noticably faster? I've heard from people with the opposite experience, now I'm soliciting evidence that all these Ready* things actually help people.

Re:Where's the Beef? (4, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110966)

Yes, Vista is noticably more performant on my system. However it is a higher end system, and the increase in speed is due to the fact that Vista makes better use of the resources. Its an Athlon X2 system with 2 gigs of ram and an nVidia 7800 GT. Offloading rending to the card, better use of the second processor core, and using more of the RAM to cache applications, I did notice an increase in performance.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111148)

Thank you. It doesn't surprise me you need a high-end system.

People like to bitch, but if you listen to nothing but people bitching and only consider the negatives you get anything but an accurate view of the situation.

Re:Where's the Beef? (4, Interesting)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111264)

Another data point.

Athlon X2, 2GB RAM, Go 7300. Vista in default configuration runs at about 75% of the speed of XP. Switching the 'Ready' crap off gets it up to about 85-90%.

Power management is unusable - XP 3-3.5 hours, Vista default, 1 hour, Vista with crap off, 2 hours.

Re:Where's the Beef? (4, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111330)

You need a high end system that isn't being totally utilized. I imagine that if I had a single core system with a lesser video card, it wouldn't be as apparent, if at all. Vista only operates smoother on my system because there was a lot of potential there that wasn't being utilized by XP.

I imagine that if I ran solid benchmarks for a single type of task that it would come out less than for XP, but when I multitask my perception is definately that Vista runs smoother.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

atarione (601740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111076)

if you read the TFA it tells you that the SuperFetch will release memory (cache) to make way for applications that require it more urgently... once the application stops the SuperFetch will begin filling the cache again.

Watching SuperFetch After you've used a Windows Vista system a while, you'll see a low number for the Free Physical Memory counter on Task Manager's Performance page. That's because SuperFetch and standard Windows caching make use of all available physical memory to cache disk data. For example, when you first boot, if you immediately run Task Manager you should notice the Free Memory value decreasing as Cached Memory number rises. Or, if you run a memory-hungry program and then exit it (any of the freeware "RAM optimizers" that allocate large amounts of memory and then release the memory will work), or just copy a very large file, the Free number will rise and the Physical Memory Usage graph will drop as the system reclaims the deallocated memory. Over time, however, SuperFetch repopulates the cache with the data that was forced out of memory, so the Cached number will rise and the Free number will decline.


As far as end user experiences "speed" on a system upgraded from XP.... well it is pretty similar for most applications... gaming has been showing somewhat lower frame rates....but I think that the state of Nvidia's Vista drivers has had more to do with that than Vista taking performance away.

when XP came out there was a ton of people with boxen from 98 (PII 400's 128MBRAM) that were bitching that XP slowed them down ... if you have a old pc you may need to get a new PC to get the most outta Vista yeah.. but that is hardly different than it has ever been.

Re:Where's the Beef? (0, Troll)

bubbl07 (777082) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111532)

Man, this is awesome. If only other kernels had developed some way utilizing the full amount of physical memory for caching purposes nearly a decade ago. Perhaps it could also "swap" the cached portions of memory out to free up space as needed.

Maybe one day we can expect modern operating systems to have had these features for a while and not require a change of pants whenever they are implemented. But then, I guess people will always be excited by the incorporation of old features into modern operating systems if their expectations are kept low.

Re:Where's the Beef? (5, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111128)

I've been using Vista for quite a while now for primarily programming and gaming. "faster" has two areas for me:

  1. When using desktop applications- Vista does feel more responsive. This is probably a combination of the I/O optimizations they have done (actual speedup) and the 3d desktop keeping window movements smooth and removing that ugly redraw affect XP has (percieved speedup). Vista also seems to go from cold boot to functional desktop faster. The only OS component which is slower is explorer, because it tries to preview everything (this can be turned off).
  2. When gaming, however- Vista is slower. Not by a huge amount, but it is noticable. This is probably because of the 3D drivers using a new API that doesn't seem to give games exclusive access to the card anymore.

I think Microsoft may have unknowingly shot themselves in the foot by making some of the betas public. This made a lot of the "almost-enthusiast, but not really knowledgable" people decide that because the beta had some performance quirks, the RTM must too. And they've been surprisingly loud with it.

Other than some old hardware not having drivers yet, every person I've talked to who has actually ran Vista for a week agreed it is an improvement.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

7of7 (956694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111130)

On my 2 year old laptop Vista is much faster than Ubuntu was. Applications load faster. It starts up and shuts down faster. Memory intensive applications such as GIMP or Firefox open and close much faster. Furthermore after running for more than a month straight Vista has lost none of this quickness.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

chrismgtis (1062106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111184)

Anyone having performance issues with Vista is doing something wrong. I have 2GB of RAM on my machine and have absolutely no performance issues anywhere. I actually noticed an increase in the GUI's performance with Aero (and no noticeable difference in gaming).

I hear a lot of crap (and that is just what it is - crap) from a lot of Vista users about their performance. Some of which have more RAM than I do, but as I said it is crap. I have not change anything that would hinder nor increase performance in Vista. Everything is default from the initial install and I'm loving the performance.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1, Interesting)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111362)

I don't run vista so I really don't know, but ...

I suspect that any performance improvements in Vista were soon eaten up by added overhead elsewhere. Something I've noticed with Windows (since Windows 95) is that with every 'upgrade' Microsoft decides to run more stuff in the background for no real gain and I imagine that vista is no different.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111528)

Was about to say the same thing (in fact, I did in some posts a coupla days ago); there's some undeniably interesting stuff going on in the kernel that should undoubtedly make the system feel faster, if nothing else - it's just brought down by a more complex GUI and all the rest of the folderol that most geeks couldn't really care less about.

Disclaimer: have not used Vista on anything but a demo machine in PC World.

Re:Where's the Beef? (1)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111740)

It's only brought down by the UI if you have Aero turned on. Don't care about it? Turn it off. And what is this other "folderol" you speak of?

Re:Where's the Beef? (2, Funny)

wfberg (24378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111606)

With all these performance-improving things, shouldn't performance actually, you know, be improved?

Of course not. That's why they're called SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, ReadyBoot, and ReadyDrive.

My motherboard for example, comes with: BuzzFree, LifePro, PowerPro, SpeedStar, and ActiveArmor. I'm pretty sure all that means is that it, by now, obsolete.

If these features were of any use besides being marketing snakeoil and/or painfully obvious, they'd be called "the hvuk__k() tweak" or "deloop_64" or "-O3" or something.

Vista seems quite slow to me (4, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110880)

Some friends were visiting last night and they had recently purchased a new HP laptop (1.6 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM with 80 GB HDD). I was struck by how abysmally slow Vista was. The thing had Vista Home Premium on it. Putting a blank CD entailed a wait of anywhere from 15 to 25 seconds before the stupid dialog came up asking if I wanted to burn something to the blank disc. Connecting to a wireless network was a complete disaster. My wireless network is setup to not broadcast its SSID, so I had to enter the setting manually along with the WPA password. As soon as I was done, the thing would take the dialog away and then not connect. It took me 30 minutes of hunting to find the listing that had the wireless networks I had manually entered in (as opposed to the networks which were broadcasting). To top if off, the system kept prompting to allow things that it really seemed I should not need to be asked. I am seriously not trying to troll here, this is just
my first impression of vista.

Re:Vista seems quite slow to me (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111124)

Anything would be slow on that laptop (well except for dos or stripped down linux distros). Recently purchased 1.6 ghz? Even dell's budget laptop is better than that. My pentium M 1.8ghz I bought a year ago runs XP slow. While I don't look down on those looking to be frugal, they can hardly complain about slow speed.

Anything non-budget will run vista fast. My core 2 duo runs vista noticeably faster than XP, wit the exception of games (which is mostly the fault of nvidia drivers, I'm seriously considering picking up an ATI card).

Re:Vista seems quite slow to me (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111186)

I should clarify that I know that benchmarks show XP is faster, but for some reason launching apps and day to day tasks seem faster in vista.

Re:Vista seems quite slow to me (1)

chrismgtis (1062106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111352)

The machine I have Vista on is running 2GB of RAM with everything default from the initial install and it performs just as well or better overall compared to XP. When you say 1.6GHz I assume you are referring to an Intel processor which is somewhat outdated and you can't expect to much from it in Vista.

Re:Vista seems quite slow to me (1)

RootWind (993172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111546)

Hmm... I wonder if HP is at fault here. I installed Vista Business on my old notebook. Pentium M 1.3ghz, 1GB DDR. It runs the same as XP for the most part. Well, except no Aero, since the graphics card is too old.

Re:Vista seems quite slow to me (1)

alexmcmorris (1067264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111696)

Almost everything you mentioned have huge IO delays that aren't necessarily indicative of a problem with Vista. CD/DVD access is hideous on cheap drives; wireless is... well... wireless. The dialog prompting for every little thing you want to do is a problem but unrelated to performance.

Improve? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Daredevil (109528) | more than 7 years ago | (#18110934)

This benchmark article [tomshardware.com] shows that SuperFetch and ReadyBoost can help improve app launch times a bit, but mostly only if you have woefully tiny amounts of RAM in your computer.

However, this slew of benchmarks [tomshardware.com] shows Vista to be slower across the board then XP.

Re:Improve? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111162)

SuperFetch does more than caching. Windows Vista runs a SuperFetch service that analyzes your application behavior and usage patterns, meaning that it tracks which applications you request the most. A good example would be your activity as you start the PC in the morning: You launch Outlook to fetch email, a messenger, a web browser and probably additional applications such as a development environment. If you do this repeatedly and ideally in the same order, SuperFetch will recognize this and then proactively populate these applications into all available main memory the next time you start the PC. You should only wait for a few minutes before you commence work to give the SuperFetch service the time to "superfetch" your applications.

This seems really silly to me. Applications load fast for me on the P4 2.4 with 512MB of RAM that I use for work. I don't have any productivity issues because I'm waiting for my applications to load. It takes less than twenty seconds to get to the desktop and start loading applications. I wouldn't have any use for this at all at home as the laptop hibernates with the applications open.

What I want to know is if they fixed Access' broken network behaviors when trying to access remote databases -- you know, the one where the entire system is hung up because it and the OS it runs on is a pile of shit? Yeah, *that* particular application fucks me all up and makes it difficult to be productive when I have to try to minimize it or switch to the desktop 10x before it will go all while it's popping back up when a single little dot on the progress meter moves up.

I'm waiting for the day when we don't have any bells and whistles and Windows operates as it should -- fast and fast with minimal amounts of RAM, CPU power, and graphics capabilities.

Re:Improve? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111466)

A good example would be your activity as you start the PC in the morning: You launch Outlook to fetch email, a messenger, a web browser and probably additional applications such as a development environment. If you do this repeatedly and ideally in the same order, SuperFetch will recognize this and then proactively populate these applications into all available main memory the next time you start the PC. You should only wait for a few minutes before you commence work to give the SuperFetch service the time to "superfetch" your applications.

This is amusing to me because when I had a separate Windows machine I would boot it every other morning because otherwise it would be too slow to be usable (WinXP+some big Adobe apps). My OS X box, however, gets rebooted pretty much only when their is a software update that requires it. Windows XP "boots" in about 2 seconds, because I have a VM running on top of OS X so I just restore from a known good state every time.

It seems rather archaic to consider how long it takes to boot and start applications up when it is such a rare task. Not that I mind improvements, it just seems pretty useless to a person that does not have rebooting as a part of their normal workflow.

Re:Improve? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111588)

This is amusing to me because when I had a separate Windows machine I would boot it every other morning because otherwise it would be too slow to be usable (WinXP+some big Adobe apps). My OS X box, however, gets rebooted pretty much only when their is a software update that requires it. Windows XP "boots" in about 2 seconds, because I have a VM running on top of OS X so I just restore from a known good state every time.

Funny thing is, I have a Dual G5 to my right, and a Core Duo-powered HP laptop (same specs/chips as MBP, but with nVidia instead of crap ATI graphics) and the Mac is the machine I have to reboot at least once during the week. My laptop running XP pretty much stays up all week long without problems.

With that said, my laptop takes a lot longer to reboot, when I do that, which is mostly because I wanted to boot linux.

Re:Improve? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111942)

I have a Dual G5 to my right, and a Core Duo-powered HP laptop (same specs/chips as MBP, but with nVidia instead of crap ATI graphics) and the Mac is the machine I have to reboot at least once during the week.

Umm, why? Are you actually experiencing a gradual leak of resources that cannot be fixed by just quitting and reopening an application? The only person I know who had to reboot OS X regularly was a person who experienced regular crashes because of some bad RAM and the problem went away when they swapped it for a good pair of chips. I have plenty of apps on OS X that leak resources (often the same ones as leak on Windows) but I've never had to reboot the mac in order to solve the issue.

Re:Improve? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111176)

It's quite funny actually. They have ReadyBoost that's supposed to take the strain off paging from the hard drive (although it seems to me that having more RAM would give a better speedup), and SuperFetch that puts it right back again by thrashing the hard drive 100% of the time.

Worse, SuperFetch and the indexer fight to get at the hard drive so the head is moving like nuts on a bare install.

When I first tried vista I switched the indexer off fast enough, but had never heard of SuperFetch - took another week of the hard drive light on 100% of the time before I found out how to switch that stupid thing off. Speed improved *a lot* with it off, and the power requirement dropped a lot - but still nowhere near XP levels.

and Ballmers personal favourites (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111010)

ReadyFUD and ReadyChair.

bah same old (4, Funny)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111022)

Anyone remember smartdrv of yesteryear? How about fastopen? :-)

Tom

Re:bah same old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111058)

what about stacker

Re:bah same old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111122)

I pwn j00:

I remember MagnaRAM and RAM Doubler. The best snake oil ever...

Re:bah same old (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111222)

I remember MagnaRAM and RAM Doubler. The best snake oil ever...

I don't know what you're talking about. I installed RAMDoubler on my machine years ago and had it convert my 8MB stick into a 16MB stick. I then pulled that out and sold it for considerably more than the software cost me. Best investment ever...

On a more serious note, RAMDoubler for the Mac was actually a decent piece of software in the OS 7.5 days. It certainly was a better virtual memory manager than the one included with the OS. Can't say anything about the Windows version though...

Inside the kerne;l (5, Funny)

Cally (10873) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111102)

You are lost in a twisty maze of APIs, all alike. It is dark. You are likely to be hit on the head by a chair thrown by a Grue.

Re:Inside the kerne;l (1, Insightful)

Saffaya (702234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111254)

I wish I had some mod points today to give you some +funny.
Thanks for the laugh :)

Slowing down over time? (3, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111178)

I always notice the greatest improvement in speed is when I reinstall XP, then about 9months later it slows down again. (no it's not spyware, filesystem frag etc..). This slowdown phenom. is well documented in windows cirlces.

Does Vista suffer from this same problem?

Re:Slowing down over time? (0)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111206)

Does Vista suffer from this same problem?

It doesn't slow down over time.. it starts slow.

Re:Slowing down over time? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111292)

The only time I've noticed anything like this problem you speak of is if I install SP1 over XP. Then my boot time doubles or more. However whenever I slipstreamed SP2 onto my XP CD and installed from there I kept the fast boot time...

As for Vista, I'll let you know in nine months... :P

Re:Slowing down over time? (2, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111962)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. I hate reinstalling and almost never do. I have installs that are years old that are pretty damn fast. The most obvious culprits are users who install any app they can find, have dozens of system tray icons, dozens of startup objects, dozens of unecessary services, spyware, etc. They complain about 'slowness' then do a reinstall which only removes all this unecessary software and blame MS. I'm more than a little skeptical fo these claims.

Granted, the OS could be doing moer to assist these users, but for the part its just poor user maintenance. Of course, all OS's will develop crust over time, but that doesnt mean a noticable performance drop. My aging system at home, which gets some serious abuse, produces the same FPS in bf2 as someone with a fresh install with the same hardware. It encodes video just as quickly. It feels as reponsive. It runs graphical benchmarks just as well. If windows performance degrades over time than I have some mystical power to be immune from this. Or more likely, the crap most users do to their computer just piles up, they dont bother to examine their systems, do a reinstall, and just bitch about MS.

Tagged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111258)

'sysinternals' - cos' he's the Man

Vista Performance is Fine (-1, Troll)

chrismgtis (1062106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111278)

I have to point out that those experiencing issues with Vista are doing something terribly wrong. If performance is beyond acceptable or better than XP on my machine, with 2GB of RAM then there is no reason why those with 2GB or more RAM should be having the issues they are claiming to have.

If you're machine was purchased 3 years ago and you're sticking 2GB+ of RAM in that system, get a new machine. You don't expect your horse and carriage to take you to California in a day. Upgrade that SOB and get with the program or face reality. It's not Microsoft's fault you can't afford decent technology.

Re:Vista Performance is Fine (1)

d!rtyboy (969507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111394)

But it *is* M$'s fault that they didn't take into considering the fact that most people don't have/don't want/don't care about owning a high performance PC. There is a huge demographic of users that use a PC as essentially a telephone. Do you honestly think that demographic should be forced to run out and spend 2000$ just to buy a system that is Vista "capable"? I don't think so.

Re:Vista Performance is Fine (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111478)

Are people with older systems being forced to upgrade to Vista? I don't know if Microsoft has any sort of agreement with companies like Dell that would force them to put Vista on unsuitable systems....

Based on what people are saying, it really seems like the sweet spot for Vista is at least a dual core system with 1 gb of RAM and a good video card.

Re:Vista Performance is Fine (1)

chrismgtis (1062106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111540)

And no one said "you must upgrade to Vista on your crappy machine" either. If you do so, it's your own fault that you don't own a system that is up to the challenge. Instead everyone wants to cry and bicker, because their stone age hardware won't run an operating system they never needed and they can't get the new eye candy.

Fact is, if you have any use for Vista whatsoever then you should be upgrading anyhow or purchasing a new system. For example, if your a gamer that wants to run the newest and greatest DX10 games, you don't pull out your 486 and bitch when it doesn't work. You obviously need a new system to do the newest and greatest things. It's a fact of life and not Microsoft's problem.

Re:Vista Performance is Fine (1)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111552)

I don't think this demographic should be forced to run out and buy a new system. What, exactly, about the release of a new OS, and its inclusion on new OEM machines, leads you to believe people are being forced to do anything?

Spend 599 and have a 19" monitor while your at it (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111726)

Dell has a E521, AMD 3800 X2, 1 Gig Ram, 250 gig drive, Free Shipping & 19" LCD Monitor. Spend 45 bucks to get the 7900GS video card and "You are good to go"

2 grand my ass. Just where do you buy your pcs?

Re:Spend 599 and have a 19" monitor while your at (1)

d!rtyboy (969507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111894)

2gs was just an exaggeration. And I know M$ isn't literally forcing people to upgrade but they're going out of their way to make it nearly impossible for anyone not to. And that's what I meant. Sooner or later they're going to release a new version of MSN Messenger that requires Vista even though there could not possibly any technical reason it would need it. Just like what they're doing with dx10, if they wanted to make it compatible with XP they could have done so. Making dx10 Vista only was purely a marketing decision. If M$ wanted to truly upgrade windows, they would have taken the NT base code and made it more optimized, more compact, added some good features and took bugs out of it, added a flash GUI and then produce a descent workable Windows upgrade. You do not need a lot of horsepower to have good features, good performance and a flashy GUI. It's a shame they didn't do that.

Inside the Windows Vista kernel... (5, Funny)

BeProf (597697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111318)

#include

int main() {
        uac_alert("You are attempting to initialize variables. Cancel or allow?");
        int i;

        uac_alert("You are attempting to enter a loop. Cancel or allow?");
        for (i = 0; i 100; i++) {
                uac_alert("You are attempting to iterate a loop. Cancel or allow?");
                i++;
        }

        uac_alert("You are attempting to exit program. Cancel or allow?");
        return 0;
}

Re:Inside the Windows Vista kernel... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111648)

So, are you telling me, like in your example, when it prompts me, it doesnt even evaluate whether I pressed "ok" or "cancel"?

Re:Inside the Windows Vista kernel... (1)

protactin (206817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111672)

The uac_alert function just crashes the program if you select cancel. Or perhaps if you don't.

Re:Inside the Windows Vista kernel... (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111874)

obviously the uac_alert function checks. if you allow it returns form the print to screen, if you disallow it executes a break in a quasi random portion of the program leading to system instability. :)
-nB

Think Netburst (1)

bogie (31020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111424)

Microsoft has bet that in the long run that their new memory optimization technologies will pay off with much improved performance and robustness. Seriously, that is exactly what's going on. The problem is all along XP is there staring at you with a whole slew of built-in app provider support and optimization. Vista can't help but be slower considering the change MS made under the hood. Btw I'm certainly not saying that MS's under the hood changes will be beneficial long term, look at Netburst. MS could dump or change whatever they want when Vista's replacement comes out in two years. You would hope that you could have it both ways ala how people claim OS X gets faster with each release, but with MS that just isn't going to happen. Thus early Vista adopters must suffer.

My advice to to either A)stay put on XP or B)make dam sure you app runs at an acceptable clip under Vista.

Hint - Sidebar and all those widgets while fun to look at waste cpu time, turn em off or use 3rd party alternatives.

flash? for cache? huh?? (1)

somepunk (720296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111452)

Flash memory is generally rated for 100,000 write cycles. Cache is constantly getting swapped in and out. Did these geniuses optimize things so it only uses the flash sticks for stuff you access frequently and overwrites it less often or something? Flash memory is about the last thing you'd want to use for cache memory!

I don't like being cynical, but it seems like a shiny cool-sounding feature they wanted for marketing.

inside windows vista kernel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18111460)

Is like inside that dark hole on dagobah.

flash faster than hdd? (0, Redundant)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111474)

right, i'll believe that when winged primates fly out of my rectum... access time is one thing, but actual read/write speed is another.
http://www.moka5.com/reviews/2006/11/usbstick4.htm l [moka5.com]
(ignore the selected drives)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx= 33&model1=676&model2=676&chart=34 [tomshardware.com]
right, i'm going to kill a flashdrive just so my windows will run more swiftly.
(i know this is more of the same, but i can't resist) way to go microsoft; for your next trick, are you going to shoot your other foot?

"how they improve system performance" (0, Flamebait)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111594)

In reality it is a GIANT step backward, without even askin "Mother May I". Just bought an HP dv6205us (MEsta Home version) notebook 512M Core Duo. Added 2 (Two!) 1GB "fast" USB drives for caching (sorry, I wont promulgate their asinine market terms). This machine, with all these "advanced" assists takes far longer to boot and login than a slower single core AMD with XP pro without these crutches.
It takes the UAC more than 10 seconds to flag an sudo escalation. Earlier on /. it was proposed that one needs 4GB to hit the "sweet spot" the fsking hardware will only do 2GB!
Oh, let us not forget the lovely artificial constraints about joining a home network and the ability to establish a local policy. The primary purpose if this OS (and the company attempting to shove it down our collective throats) is about restricting what you can do with the hardware and software for which you paid money and try extort more from you for capabilities that should be there from the get-go. There is NO "genuine advantage" in using this steaming pile. Stay with XP if you must, better yet, re-install with the *nix distro of your choice. It is going to be YEARS before the current mess is patched to usability on a current average machine and you'll still be laboring under the yoke of what THEY decide you may or may not do.

Re:"how they improve system performance" (2)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111724)

Dont blame microsoft. You were the one who bought a vista notebook with only 512 ram.

Every release of Windows® improves scalabilit (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111596)

Is this Microsoft fanboy's version of making Safari more snappy?

WTF (2, Insightful)

abradsn (542213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18111912)

Windows Vista uses the same boot-time prefetching as Windows XP did if the system has less than 512MB of memory, but if the system has 700MB or more of RAM, it uses an in-RAM cache to optimize the boot process.

Okay, so I just wanted to nitpick a sentence here. What happens between 512 and 700. I presume it does the same thing at XP would have. But this sentence is confusing, and perhaps implies that perhaps Ms. PacMan will get launched in this scenario.

Overall though, an interesting series. Kudos to the author.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...