MS Responds To Vista's Network / Audio Problems

quirdan writes "With the discovery last week of the connection between Vista's poor networking performance and audio activities, word quickly spread around the Net. No doubt this got Microsoft's attention, and they have responded to the issue. Microsoft states that 'some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not'; and that they are working on technical documentation, as well as applying a slight sugar coating to the symptoms. Apparently they believe an almost 90% drop in networking performance is 'slight,' only affects reception of data, and that this performance trade-off is necessary to simply play an MP3."

Comments

Re:missing tag?

[cabinetsoft]

They just said a 90% performance hit to an unrelated system is normal?

The blurb has an error... is not a 90% peformance hit but a 10% performance hit. Playing audio files won't get you down to 10% of the non-audio-playing throughput but to 90%.

Their response is sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two interesting things about this matter:
1. How retarded the predictions of the Slashdot user base were. Look at this for example, which along with all of the other DRM blather was from another universe.
2. How retarded the response from the Slashdot user base to their explanation is. Despite explaining the purpose of the scheduling trade-off, people harp on about their 20 year old computers and their stellar mp3 playback over slow links. You've sure showed Microsoft, tough guys!

What they've said makes sense. It sounds buggy though, as it should be difficult for GbE or audio playback to saturate the CPU enough to legitimately run into the scheduling conflicts that would starve network performance significantly.

It seems that most of the technically-oriented people left Slashdot for greener pastures, leaving a pool of insipid teenagers in their wake. Thanks for reminding me why I didn't read this site for three years, you monkeys.

Same old song and dance.

[twitter]

I suppose this explains why MS has been so reticent to start afresh with the codebase until now. Even basic things are buggy and it's costing the reputation of the latest roll-out. Pushing Vista too early is only going to hinder long-term deployment.

This has been the case for every "new" M$ OS ever. When talking to their investors, they are proud to say they never enter a market that's not "mature" and always do so by purchasing someone else's "killer" code for pennies on the dollar. The only difference is that the problems have added up and that investors have quit funding Windoze startups so M$ no longer has anyone to buy. This is why exploits invariably encompass every version of Winblows listed by those who publish them. It's also part of the reason Vista has taken so long to roll out. Every "new" release of Winblows is promissed to have rewritten code from the ground up and all the best features of every rival without any of the problems. As the world outside of M$ is much larger than M$ itself, their boasting is clearly impossible. If reason alone is not good enough, just look back at all of the things promissed but not delivered for every previous version of Windows. I'm not sure they have delivered on all the promisses made for Win95 yet but I am sure their infamous "backward compatibility" is from never writting much new code.

Re:Nice error, the drop is 10%

[Liquidrage]

Doesn't matter? Are you stupid? No system is giving 100% to audio most of the time. If a system made it so my audio playback was as close to perfect as could be without interfering with other functions, I'd love that. They all try but no one gets it 100%. XP had less preference on audio, and I could tell the difference in quality when my CPU was getting taxed on other things.
You may not like the priority. But at least have a clue what your talking about.