Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Sour on Vista Service Pack 1 Performance
Stony Stevenson passed us a link indicating that a group of researchers has described Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista Service Pack 1 as basically a performance dud. Researchers from the Devil Mountain Software group is claiming that a series of in-house benchmark tests showed that users hoping to receive a speed boost from the update will be disappointed. "Devil Mountain ran its DMS Clarity Studio framework on a laptop Barth described as a "barn burner" -- dual-core processor, dedicated graphics, and either 1GB or 2GB of memory -- to compare performance of the SP1 release candidate that Microsoft released last week with the RTM version that hit general distribution last January. The Vista RTM was not updated with any of the bug fixes, patches or performance packs that Microsoft has pushed through Windows Update since the operating system's debut. 'One gigabyte, 2GB [of memory], it didn't make a difference,' said [CTO Craig] Barth. 'SP1 was never more than 1% or 2% faster.'"
Did Microsoft say it would improve overall system performance?
Well I did go with a compsci degree but I'm sure I could find something. Here's my proposed patch:
+/*
40 million lines of DRM, WGA, Windows Media Ultra Control Restricted Mode Crap
+*/
Done!
Last one out of Redmond, please turn off that god damn useless big ass table...
Without wishing to troll, when has a Window service pack ever improved the speed of a Windows OS?
In fact, and I'm sure someone on Slashdot has raw data on this (that perhaps even shows I'm wrong), Apple are the only company who has ever achieved this on a regular basis.
I've found in my rather short development career is something scarily similar to the first law of thermodynamics: "Bad code once created can never be destroyed." In most commercial situations, the risk of breaking a routine far outweighs the benefit the change brings.
We've built an entire area of study, refactoring, on trying to sell the importance of keeping code clean. I'm still not 100% convinced that the case for refactoring has been made. If you spend three months refactoring, is the simpler overall structure really going to speed up development sufficiently to justify the capital outlay? In all but the very worst code-bases, the answer is unclear.Bear in mind, refactoring my cause you to notice bugs that you can't fix because it would break an interface. Now your code has to be badly structured to support this bad business logic. This can be enough to render the effort useless.
This is why service packs rarely improve functionality or performance. Windows XP SP2 is a notable exception. The risk is simply too great.
Simon
Yes, it DOES matter to Joe. Joe, however, won't call it "code optimization". Joe will simply say that "Vista runs slower than my XP did!" He doesn't care WHY it's so, but even Joe can tell the difference in speed.
We have a lot of Joes come through our shop. They notice.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Do some research and you'll find you don't need a service pack to tune Vista:
Turn off: Volume Shadow Copy (files won't be versioned automatically any more), indexing service (rapid searching won't work any more), and SuperFetch (apps wont be pre-loaded and so will start slower, but you'll have more "free memory" on average - a debatable benefit anyway).
You'll notice XP levels of disc activity (barely any) and lot's more free memory. That's because Vista's not doing anything. Personally, I like to be able to search instantly, have apps load instantly, and have my critical files backed up transparently; so I don't mind the "bloat".
Anyway, if you actually know how Windows works, you'll know what you don't want running and what you do. Turn off the stuff you don't want, but most people are fine with the defaults even if it means using more resources.
throw new NoSignatureException();
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Tell that to the KDE team.
Won't happen - they wouldn't give users the ability to reanimate the dead without the permission of the copyright holder (presumably FSM or Odin or someone). I suppose they could get official backing by releasing something (Holy Windows?) which makes you pray for half an hour before booting but, now that I think about it, that's pretty much the current position... ...oh, shit.
Can someone lend me a cricket bat, please?
...Vista is NOT about performance. It's about security. The market demanded a 'more secure' Windows, and Microsoft delivered. The market once demanded speed, and MS delivered Windows 98.
The hard part is usually not the optimisation, it's working out where the optimisations need to go. This typically involves wading through huge amounts of data from profiling runs.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So what you're saying is that you don't care because it's not your primary OS. Those that do care may be thinking of it running as their primary OS. Heck they may be forced to do so at work in a couple of years. Their LIVING may depend on it.
I do use XP as my primary OS at home and at work and you bet I care. It ain't my spare car. It's my primary ride.
How is the parent modded as insightful? He's saying he doesn't give a shit because he hardly uses it.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer