Windows Vista performance comprehension
- Thread starter arnalion
- Start date
TerraPhantm
New member
1) It's beta
2) It's compiled in debugging mode
Of course it's going to be slower based on the two above facts.
2) It's compiled in debugging mode
Of course it's going to be slower based on the two above facts.
TerraPhantm
New member
I assure you, build 5384.4 is a checked/debug build. This accounts for the 700MB usage on startup, and also explains why Daemon tools doesn't work with this build. I'm positive that the retail build (and maybe RC1 if its not a checked/debug build) will be MUCH faster then the current beta.
A google search will show you that it is indeed compiled in debug mode.
A google search will show you that it is indeed compiled in debug mode.
Last edited:
TerraPhantm
New member
Official beta testers have confirmed this.
TerraPhantm
New member
I was wrong that it's a CHK build, but it has debug code. Every Windows beta has debug code, which is obviously used to find bugs and fix them for future builds. Beta testers on other forums have confirmed this. Is there an official announcement about this? No, but nevertheless it is expected for a beta build to contain debug code.
Even this article explains the betas are slower because they're compiled in debug mode.
Even this article explains the betas are slower because they're compiled in debug mode.
Last edited:
TerraPhantm
New member
That may indeed be, but like I said it's the combination of it being beta and the debug code being enabled causing this build to be slow and take a lot of RAM. Usually it's during the RC builds where they really start optimizing speeds, and of course the retail version will not have debug code. Because of this, I'm confident that Vista will perform fine in games after it is released.
WhiteX
New member
They are aiming too high, i know that a part of the upgrade engine is that the software must require more from the hardware, even if it is not justifiable, so that we get more hardware and be happy...for 6 months or less.
It seems now that they are deeming every single machine out there old, ppl with machines as good as yours are getting 3 on the performance check, now that is too poor, even without the said debug info, let´s say it doubles the speed (very unlikely), the dude will get a 6, i mean, right above average, with a bigass 64 bit dual core processor,a gig of ram and the latest DX9 top of the line video card.
It seems now that they are deeming every single machine out there old, ppl with machines as good as yours are getting 3 on the performance check, now that is too poor, even without the said debug info, let´s say it doubles the speed (very unlikely), the dude will get a 6, i mean, right above average, with a bigass 64 bit dual core processor,a gig of ram and the latest DX9 top of the line video card.
TerraPhantm
New member
Well I would have a 5 if it weren't for my HDD.... btw sorry for deleting my earlier post, something didn't sound right to me.
Vista gets the "overall" score by taking the lowest number and dropping the decimal.
EDIT: I was just reading the help file on the rating, it's not really out of anything, they said they'll just add more ratings when more powerful hardware comes out, rather then "demoting" current hardware. The rating simply tells you what kind of software you can safely buy. I guess today, a computer with a rating of 5 or 6 can run just about nething.
Vista gets the "overall" score by taking the lowest number and dropping the decimal.
EDIT: I was just reading the help file on the rating, it's not really out of anything, they said they'll just add more ratings when more powerful hardware comes out, rather then "demoting" current hardware. The rating simply tells you what kind of software you can safely buy. I guess today, a computer with a rating of 5 or 6 can run just about nething.
Last edited:
BoggyB
New member
The other thing to bear in mind is the state of the drivers. They may be unoptimised debug versions.
Another big point is that in Vista the graphics drivers were moved back to user space. This makes things more reliable and makes it possible to dynamically swap drivers without a restart, but it does hit performance.
Another big point is that in Vista the graphics drivers were moved back to user space. This makes things more reliable and makes it possible to dynamically swap drivers without a restart, but it does hit performance.
t0rek
Wilson's Friend
Check out this article, I've been following this guy comments from over a year, and his opinion is quite interesting...
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta2.asp
EDIT: Fixed the link
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta2.asp
EDIT: Fixed the link
Last edited:
Wow, TerraPhantm, if your PC is 3... my PC should be 1... or would be much if it is 2... I'll start to think in upgrade the hardware of my PC for run Vista.
My PC:
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (Northwood) with HT
512 MB of RAM
ATI Radeon 7500 with 64 MB (yeah... horrible card for these times)
80 GB HDD
My PC:
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (Northwood) with HT
512 MB of RAM
ATI Radeon 7500 with 64 MB (yeah... horrible card for these times)
80 GB HDD