Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Flame on: Windows Vista

145791031

Posts

  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Violynt wrote: »
    Well that's because you used DX10. It's not Vista, it's DX10 causing that performance drop.


    Edit: I would also like to see your specs.

    What do my system specs have to do with anything? The statement I responded to was:
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    This statement is false as I'm sure anyone would agree with. In a 1:1 scenario, that is one computer running clean XP and then the exact same computer running clean Vista, The XP computer will out perform the Vista computer every time.

    A more accurate statement would have been:

    "Get Vista, I like it more. Gaming won't be a problem as long as you make sure you have the current generation of CPU and video card as well as 2-4gb of memory."

    How 'bout "negligible at worst if you're on modern hardware."

    Do any gamers still try to run 1 gig?

    Also, a clean install doesn't run nearly as well as a month-old install of Vista. Anyone who tests Vista on a clean install and gives up is a goddamn moron.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I really can't see how Vista is slower on modern PCs compared to XP.

    They're either on par or Vista is actually faster with application execution due to Superfetch.

    Remember pagefile thrashing when trying to load an app? Yeah, that's gone, completely gone.

    I haven't had to wait for the HDD to finish Page writes since I started using Vista. Even after playing games. I can actually fire up Firefox as soon as I'm done playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    I really can't see how Vista is slower on modern PCs compared to XP.

    They're either on par or Vista is actually faster with application execution due to Superfetch.

    Remember pagefile thrashing when trying to load an app? Yeah, that's gone, completely gone.


    I haven't had to wait for the HDD to finish Page writes since XP. Even after playing games. I can actually fire up Firefox as soon as I'm done playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.
    Vista completely destroys XP in paging efficiency. This will only become more true as hybrid hard drives become cheaper.

    Azio on
  • halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun on
    wVo0Rgr.png
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    I really can't see how Vista is slower on modern PCs compared to XP.

    They're either on par or Vista is actually faster with application execution due to Superfetch.

    Remember pagefile thrashing when trying to load an app? Yeah, that's gone, completely gone.


    I haven't had to wait for the HDD to finish Page writes since XP. Even after playing games. I can actually fire up Firefox as soon as I'm done playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.
    Vista completely destroys XP in paging efficiency. This will only become more true as hybrid hard drives become cheaper.

    Hmm, I meant Vista (Since I started using Vista) instead of XP. But yes, Page file writes are now so transparent that you can click away as soon as the desktop is loaded.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun wrote: »

    That's really too bad. There are a bunch of beta fixes that (as of december) haven't become official but still offer fixes for specific performance and functionality issues. Some of them you have to register and apply to even use them. I have an MS Vista approved MS webcam that needed a usb fix in order to even work.

    stigweard on
  • PrimesghostPrimesghost Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Violynt wrote: »
    Alot of things, Nvidia drivers at the time you might of tried Vista were awful and I'd also like to know the amount of RAM you have.

    I my self have used DX9 in Vista and XP and have found that the FPS is almost identical, 1-2 fps difference at times.

    You have a point with the driver issue and you're probably right that it's gotten much better since then. For the record I have 2gb of memory. Also I was using DX10 in Vista and DX9 in XP, that will account for alot of the performance difference but DX10 is what MS is touting as the newest gaming graphics revolution and are pushing hard for developers to use exclusively.
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Also, a clean install doesn't run nearly as well as a month-old install of Vista. Anyone who tests Vista on a clean install and gives up is a goddamn moron.

    Alright, you're gonna have to explain that one to me since I'm obviously a goddamn moron. You're telling me that a clean install of ANY operating system runs slower and then speeds up over time? No sir. I've installed Windows on a lot of computers, more than I can count, and I've never run into a case where after a clean install it ran slower than before...never, not even on Vista. Are you telling me that system performance benchmark tests are being done wrong by every professional in the world? So every game benchmarking outfit in the entire world is doing it wrong? No sir. A clean install is just that: clean. Install the OS, download the latest drivers from the hardware manufacturers, download all the available updates, done. Every piece of software that you add from that day forward will potentially slow down the system, not speed it up.

    Primesghost on
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun wrote: »

    Dont' always believe articles made 3 months ago. I'll take your 3 month old article and raise you an article written a bit over 1 month ago, shortly before RC1 went public

    Article



    I installed RC1 of SP1, and noticed an immediate performance improvement on my machine. the OS takes less time to Boot(from off, all the way to having a usable desktop after logging in). It's actually about a full minute less now. Windows Explorer(not IE7) is much more responsive, and I had some glitches in networking where once a week Vista would refuse to believe that I had a cat5e cable plugged into the NIC, that required a reboot to fix(that has probably been my biggest gripe about vista to this point). That hasn't happened in nearly a month. And yes, I have been updating Vista every month, since i first installed Beta 2.

    Also, to the poster who said a month old install runs faster than a fresh install, you are absolutely right. That prefetch loading common apps into RAM makes a big difference, and once the OS has indexed everything(which can take about a month if you have over 1TB of data like I do), it runs a hell of a lot faster than it does on day one.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The amount of data is mostly irrelevant, it's the number and type of files that count. A terabyte of porn takes no time to index compared to 5GB of small files. You can force Vista to do your bidding within a day or two. Once it has finished its install, leave it be for a day so it can index, and then repeatedly open and close the apps you use frequently, one at a time. 7 or 8 loads of FF will have it opening faster than IE. It should never take a month, even on a slower system.

    stigweard on
  • MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    I installed RC1 of SP1, and noticed an immediate performance improvement on my machine. the OS takes less time to Boot(from off, all the way to having a usable desktop after logging in). It's actually about a full minute less now.

    A minute less? Just how long does it take your system to boot?

    Something needs to be fixed if mine takes over a minute period.

    Monoxide on
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    stigweard wrote: »
    The amount of data is mostly irrelevant, it's the number and type of files that count. A terabyte of porn takes no time to index compared to 5GB of small files. You can force Vista to do your bidding within a day or two. Once it has finished its install, leave it be for a day so it can index, and then repeatedly open and close the apps you use frequently, one at a time. 7 or 8 loads of FF will have it opening faster than IE. It should never take a month, even on a slower system.

    ya, I have a lot of small files. And leaving the computer alone for a day so it can index is just not going to happen, especially in a real world scenario. it indexes during slow times on the machine. It took my machine about 3 weeks to finish indexing last time under normal usage(some gaming, some web browsing, some idle time, computer off while i'm not home).

    And yes, because Joe consumer is going to open/close their web browser 7-8 times in a row to make it open faster later on. Again, in a real world scenario, not going to happen.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Monoxide wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    I installed RC1 of SP1, and noticed an immediate performance improvement on my machine. the OS takes less time to Boot(from off, all the way to having a usable desktop after logging in). It's actually about a full minute less now.

    A minute less? Just how long does it take your system to boot?

    Something needs to be fixed if mine takes over a minute period.

    ya, I do need to re-install. My login used to take 2 minutes to go from entering password to a usable desktop(about 60 seconds now with SP1). I just haven't had time to sit down for 3 hours or so and re-install Vista. Something is fucked with my startup, and I've just been too lazy to fix it.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • PrimesghostPrimesghost Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Also, to the poster who said a month old install runs faster than a fresh install, you are absolutely right. That prefetch loading common apps into RAM makes a big difference, and once the OS has indexed everything(which can take about a month if you have over 1TB of data like I do), it runs a hell of a lot faster than it does on day one.

    Ahh but see, what I said was on a clean install of Vista. No extra hard drives, no extra software. One freshly formatted hard drive and the only non-OS software installed are the drivers and the game used to test performance. There should be no indexing going on. This is how you benchmark hardware/software. You don't test on a system that's been running for a while with people using it for average computing/surfing with extraneous software installed.

    Primesghost on
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I have so much data (around 5 TB now) that vista just basically asplodes then slows to a crawl on all searches if i try to get it to index anything D: i also did a fresh install a week ago and straight off the fresh install it took almost a minute from login to when everything was actually loaded and running well on the desktop. That being said XP doesn't seem to be much faster at logging in on that machine than vista. Maybe its due to all the drive space, i dont know.

    edit: and prime, sure up until this point benchmarking has been done on clean installs, but thats simply because all home operating systems ran fastest right after a clean install. If they start running faster after a period of time and use like vista it makes much more sense to benchmark them after that time, its just never been required before.

    taliosfalcon on
    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Violynt wrote: »
    Alot of things, Nvidia drivers at the time you might of tried Vista were awful and I'd also like to know the amount of RAM you have.

    I my self have used DX9 in Vista and XP and have found that the FPS is almost identical, 1-2 fps difference at times.

    You have a point with the driver issue and you're probably right that it's gotten much better since then. For the record I have 2gb of memory. Also I was using DX10 in Vista and DX9 in XP, that will account for alot of the performance difference but DX10 is what MS is touting as the newest gaming graphics revolution and are pushing hard for developers to use exclusively.
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Also, a clean install doesn't run nearly as well as a month-old install of Vista. Anyone who tests Vista on a clean install and gives up is a goddamn moron.

    Alright, you're gonna have to explain that one to me since I'm obviously a goddamn moron. You're telling me that a clean install of ANY operating system runs slower and then speeds up over time? No sir. I've installed Windows on a lot of computers, more than I can count, and I've never run into a case where after a clean install it ran slower than before...never, not even on Vista. Are you telling me that system performance benchmark tests are being done wrong by every professional in the world? So every game benchmarking outfit in the entire world is doing it wrong? No sir. A clean install is just that: clean. Install the OS, download the latest drivers from the hardware manufacturers, download all the available updates, done. Every piece of software that you add from that day forward will potentially slow down the system, not speed it up.

    Excuse me for speaking harshly. I was defining a "clean install" as a fresh install. Many of the initial gaming tests out there for Vista specifically stated that they had a brand-new install of both XP and Vista, then found that Vista booted programs more slowly, and generally slowed things down. It does that by design, as it indexes (causing the much-maligned HDD churning) and learns when to preload your apps in system memory.

    This is well-documented at this point, thus the moron comment. Someone shouting VISTA EATS MY RAMS AND X REVIEW SAID IT LOADED OFFICE SLOWER is a goddamn moron, because they're parroting badly researched results.

    By your definition of a clean install, you have a very valid point. We're all using different definitions. A clean install has no other software. A fresh install (of Vista) hasn't adapted to your hardware yet and isn't up to full speed. That's what most of the testing was done on, though.

    Wunderbar - have you used Defender to make sure nothing's killing your startup? I found that disabling the Adobe and Quicktime updaters vastly increased my boot times. I've got my laptop (Ultimate 64, core 2, 2gb) down to about 30 seconds, unless I leave my domain account logged in when I'm not on a domain.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    stigweard wrote: »
    The amount of data is mostly irrelevant, it's the number and type of files that count. A terabyte of porn takes no time to index compared to 5GB of small files. You can force Vista to do your bidding within a day or two. Once it has finished its install, leave it be for a day so it can index, and then repeatedly open and close the apps you use frequently, one at a time. 7 or 8 loads of FF will have it opening faster than IE. It should never take a month, even on a slower system.

    ya, I have a lot of small files. And leaving the computer alone for a day so it can index is just not going to happen, especially in a real world scenario. it indexes during slow times on the machine. It took my machine about 3 weeks to finish indexing last time under normal usage(some gaming, some web browsing, some idle time, computer off while i'm not home).

    And yes, because Joe consumer is going to open/close their web browser 7-8 times in a row to make it open faster later on. Again, in a real world scenario, not going to happen.

    No, but he'll open and close his browser more frequently than other programs, triggering prefetch to aggressively cache it. Doing it on your own just accelerates the process, but you'll notice your computer speeding up over the course of a month through normal usage, especially since Vista factors in the time of day with superfetch caching.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Also, to the poster who said a month old install runs faster than a fresh install, you are absolutely right. That prefetch loading common apps into RAM makes a big difference, and once the OS has indexed everything(which can take about a month if you have over 1TB of data like I do), it runs a hell of a lot faster than it does on day one.

    Ahh but see, what I said was on a clean install of Vista. No extra hard drives, no extra software. One freshly formatted hard drive and the only non-OS software installed are the drivers and the game used to test performance. There should be no indexing going on. This is how you benchmark hardware/software. You don't test on a system that's been running for a while with people using it for average computing/surfing with extraneous software installed.

    The problem is a big benchmark, application load time, will be much slower than it will be a month down the road, as well as switching between applications in a full memory scenario.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if some companies are aware of the testing particulars, and manipulate them to get desired results.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    o your hardware yet and isn't up to full speed. That's what most of the testing was done on, though.

    Wunderbar - have you used Defender to make sure nothing's killing your startup? I found that disabling the Adobe and Quicktime updaters vastly increased my boot times. I've got my laptop (Ultimate 64, core 2, 2gb) down to about 30 seconds, unless I leave my domain account logged in when I'm not on a domain.

    ya, I've disabled almost everything I should at startup. There are a couple of things that i've installed recently that load at startup that I need to disable, but they shoudlnt' make that much of a difference.

    It's just feelign the symptoms of being a year old install of windows.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    o your hardware yet and isn't up to full speed. That's what most of the testing was done on, though.

    Wunderbar - have you used Defender to make sure nothing's killing your startup? I found that disabling the Adobe and Quicktime updaters vastly increased my boot times. I've got my laptop (Ultimate 64, core 2, 2gb) down to about 30 seconds, unless I leave my domain account logged in when I'm not on a domain.

    ya, I've disabled almost everything I should at startup. There are a couple of things that i've installed recently that load at startup that I need to disable, but they shoudlnt' make that much of a difference.

    It's just feelign the symptoms of being a year old install of windows.

    In theory, Vista shouldn't follow that old pattern. In theory. I reinstalled both of my machines with 64-bit, but the first 9 months or so didn't see any slowdown. XP, on the other hand, I reinstalled every 6-months to a year.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    o your hardware yet and isn't up to full speed. That's what most of the testing was done on, though.

    Wunderbar - have you used Defender to make sure nothing's killing your startup? I found that disabling the Adobe and Quicktime updaters vastly increased my boot times. I've got my laptop (Ultimate 64, core 2, 2gb) down to about 30 seconds, unless I leave my domain account logged in when I'm not on a domain.

    ya, I've disabled almost everything I should at startup. There are a couple of things that i've installed recently that load at startup that I need to disable, but they shoudlnt' make that much of a difference.

    It's just feelign the symptoms of being a year old install of windows.

    In theory, Vista shouldn't follow that old pattern. In theory. I reinstalled both of my machines with 64-bit, but the first 9 months or so didn't see any slowdown. XP, on the other hand, I reinstalled every 6-months to a year.

    In theory.

    I think when SP1 goes gold, I'll just format and start fresh. I tend to re-install windows about once a year anyway, so ya.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Monoxide wrote: »
    wunderbar wrote: »
    I installed RC1 of SP1, and noticed an immediate performance improvement on my machine. the OS takes less time to Boot(from off, all the way to having a usable desktop after logging in). It's actually about a full minute less now.

    A minute less? Just how long does it take your system to boot?

    Something needs to be fixed if mine takes over a minute period.

    Keep in mind many motherboards do pre-POST and post-POST (Heh) tests. Mine does.

    But yeah, even then my system doesn't take more than 1 minute to boot. The whole process probably takes around 45 to 50 seconds.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • Monkey Ball WarriorMonkey Ball Warrior A collection of mediocre hats Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So, people who like vista, answer me this:

    Is a 2.2ghz Barton AthlonXP and 1.25GB of ram and a Radeon X1650 enough to run Vista? With how many shinies turned on? And how much of a drop in my allready weak framerate in TF2?

    I might install a copy of it on a spare hard drive as an experiment. If I like it I might actually buy it someday.

    I'm allready going to drop an Ubuntu install on it. I'm feeling experimental.

    Monkey Ball Warrior on
    "I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Try it. It might work out. I'm not really sure since I installed it on my previous system when I still had 1 gig and an Athlon 64 3500+ (Not exactly the same processor). It worked very well considering all the talk I heard about Vista choking at 1 gig.

    But still keep in mind that Vista does take advantage of multiple cores and RAM.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    i would never run vista with less than 2 gigs of ram..but then again I probably couldn't stand running XP with less than 2 gigs of ram anymore either, so ymmv

    taliosfalcon on
    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    Try it. It might work out. I'm not really sure since I installed it on my previous system when I still had 1 gig and an Athlon 64 3500+ (Not exactly the same processor). It worked very well considering all the talk I heard about Vista choking at 1 gig.

    But still keep in mind that Vista does take advantage of multiple cores and RAM.

    Ultimately, it seems that newer hardware does better than older, more powerful hardware. I get better overall Vista performance on my laptop, which has a dual core and newer bits, than my desktop (a two+ year old CPU) that has more VRAM, but a generation older GPU.

    Gaming doesn't seem any different, having run both on XP and Vista. The laptop GPU is still a bottleneck, but doesn't seem more exaggerated by Vista.

    Anecdotally, RAM and/or a dual core seem to be the most important parts.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The hardware thing is actually what bugs me the most about Vista, and it's not even MS's fault -- it's these stupid companies selling $400 computers with an incredibly gimped version of Vista, as if everything will be perfectly fine.

    I guess it was partly MS's fault for not allowing manufacturers to continue selling XP, but every complaint I've heard about the OS (which isn't much, since I try to avoid talking about Windows with friends/family) stems from "[relative] bought a new computer and Vista is horrible," which inevitably is tied back to "they bought the cheapest system they could find." The OS can't even get a fair shake by most people because of that. If people want to buy computers that barely (or don't) run Vista, MS shot themselves in the foot by forcing companies to switch over entirely when it launched -- but those companies are still the ones who sold those extremely underpowered computers.

    Of course, the fact that those computers need to be pretty beefy is also why I've not had any interest in Vista on my aging laptop. But I don't have any interest in 10.5 either, for the same reason as so 'n so on the first page -- there's no real point in upgrading, so why bother?

    EggyToast on
    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Troof. Semprons, integrated graphics, and 512mb of RAM do not a good Vista machine make.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey, quick Vista question for you guys:

    I have Vista Business in my notebook computer and have noticed something odd about my internet. Like, I'll be playing WoW, be in AIM/Gtalk, downloading through torrents, etc, and yet Firefox won't load the internet. Like, I'll be connecting and actively sending/receiving data from the internet, and yet I can't load web pages. It kind of randomly happens (at least I haven't noticed any repeating conditions that I can think of).

    I'm using Comodo Firewall, a Vonage phone router, and a Nintendo USB wifi dongle, all working perfectly fine, even when my computer decides that web pages don't exist. Any ideas? Thanks for the help!

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    Hey, quick Vista question for you guys:

    I have Vista Business in my notebook computer and have noticed something odd about my internet. Like, I'll be playing WoW, be in AIM/Gtalk, downloading through torrents, etc, and yet Firefox won't load the internet. Like, I'll be connecting and actively sending/receiving data from the internet, and yet I can't load web pages. It kind of randomly happens (at least I haven't noticed any repeating conditions that I can think of).

    I'm using Comodo Firewall, a Vonage phone router, and a Nintendo USB wifi dongle, all working perfectly fine, even when my computer decides that web pages don't exist. Any ideas? Thanks for the help!

    It sounds like a DNS issue. Either the DNS server for your ISP is constantly dropping out or your DNS settings aren't set right.

    Did you try flushing the DNS settings on the router and in windows?

    In windows hit the start menu and in the search field type cmd and hit enter. Then when the command prompt shows up type this: ipconfig /flushdns

    That should flush any old DNS cache data from Windows.

    Then power cycle your router as you reboot your machine.

    If you have automatic ip and DNS configuration set. Windows should retrieve DNS information from your router, and the router should have retrieved an updated DNS IP address from your ISP.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User
    edited January 2008
    That problem happens to me too sometimes Cokebottle. Victor is right, it's definitely DNS related, because anything that's already connected still works, but new domains won't resolve properly. Usually I have to restart, but that /flushdns switch looks useful.

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    MS has released the official changes in SP1.

    You can read them here

    You can make a windows recovery disk now...

    Other than that, no speed or compatibility changes are listed.

    halkun on
    wVo0Rgr.png
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User
    edited January 2008
    What are you talking about? There are tons of speed increase changes & more:

    Directx 10.1 support is pretty big.

    This is nice: "Improves the performance of browsing network file shares by consuming less bandwidth."

    And this:
    Improves performance over Windows Vista’s current performance across the following scenarios1:
    • 25% faster when copying files locally on the same disk on the same machine
    • 45% faster when copying files from a remote non-Windows Vista system to a SP1 system
    • 50% faster when copying files from a remote SP1 system to a local SP1 system

    This was a problem for me: "Improves the time to read large images by approximately 50%."

    Overall, it looks really great.

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    My Favorite
    With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4BG in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.

    That means. It only can use 3.2, but will report 4 anyway, even though you can't use it.

    halkun on
    wVo0Rgr.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun wrote: »
    My Favorite
    With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4BG in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.

    That means. It only can use 3.2, but will report 4 anyway, even though you can't use it.

    That is bad sauce.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    My Favorite
    With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4BG in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.

    That means. It only can use 3.2, but will report 4 anyway, even though you can't use it.

    That is bad sauce.

    That's consumers not understanding the limitations of x86 architecture. WHAR R ALL MY RAMS!!!???

    Also this is awesome for me;
    • Improves the performance of the user login experience on corporate PCs outside of corporate environments (e.g., a corporate laptop taken home for the evening), making it comparable with PCs within the corporate environment.

    And this will probably cause all sorts of internet outrage;
    • The Windows Vista SP1 install process clears the user-specific data that is used by Windows to optimize performance, which may make the system feel less responsive immediately after install. As the customer uses their SP1 PC, the system will be retrained over the course of a few hours or days and will return to the previous level of responsiveness.

    Edit, edit, edit: The above also further adds credence to the Devil Mountain Software report being full of shit.

    And one more of note;
    • SP1 reduces the number of UAC (User Account Control) prompts from 4 to 1 when creating or renaming a folder at a protected location.

    Nice! Though I don't understand why there should be one...

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun wrote: »
    MS has released the official changes in SP1.

    You can read them here

    You can make a windows recovery disk now...

    Other than that, no speed or compatibility changes are listed.



    Didn't actually read it, eh?
    Performance and Power Consumption Improvements

    Performance improvements vary from PC to PC based on hardware, environment, scenarios, and usage, so different customers will experience varying levels of benefits. About 20-25% of these improvements will be released separately via Windows update, prior to Windows Vista SP1.
    •

    Improves the performance of browsing network file shares by consuming less bandwidth.
    •

    Improves power consumption when the display is not changing by allowing the processor to remain in its sleep state which consumes less energy.
    •

    Addresses the problem of the Video chipset (VSync interrupt) not allowing the system to stay asleep.
    •

    Improves power consumption and battery life by addressing an issue that causes a hard disk to continue spinning when it should spin down, in certain circumstances.
    •

    Improves the speed of adding and extracting files to and from a compressed (zipped) folder.
    •

    Significantly improves the speed of moving a directory with many files underneath.
    •

    Improves performance while copying files using BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service).
    •

    Improves performance over Windows Vista’s current performance across the following scenarios1:
    •

    25% faster when copying files locally on the same disk on the same machine
    •

    45% faster when copying files from a remote non-Windows Vista system to a SP1 system
    •

    50% faster when copying files from a remote SP1 system to a local SP1 system
    •

    Improves responsiveness when doing many kinds of file or media manipulations. For example, with Windows Vista today, copying files after deleting a different set of files can make the copy operation take longer than needed. In SP1, the file copy time is the same as if no files were initially deleted.
    •

    Improves the copy progress estimation when copying files within Windows Explorer to about two seconds.
    •

    Improves the time to read large images by approximately 50%.
    •

    Improves IE performance on certain Jscript intensive websites, bringing performance in line with previous IE releases.
    •

    Addresses a problem that caused a delay of up to 5 minutes after boot with specific ReadyDrive capable hard drives.
    •

    Improves the effectiveness of a Windows ReadyBoostâ„¢ device in reducing the time to resume from standby and hibernate by increasing the amount of data stored in the ReadyBoost device that can be used during a resume cycle.
    •

    Includes improvements to Windows Superfetchâ„¢ that help to further improve resume times, in many environments.
    •

    In specific scenarios, SP1 reduces the shutdown time by a few seconds by improving the Windows Vista utility designed to sync a mobile device.
    •

    Improves the time to resume from standby for a certain class of USB Hubs by approximately 18%.
    •

    Improves network connection scenarios by updating the logic that auto selects which network interface to use (e.g., should a laptop use wireless or wired networking when both are available).
    •

    Improves the performance of the user login experience on corporate PCs outside of corporate environments (e.g., a corporate laptop taken home for the evening), making it comparable with PCs within the corporate environment.
    •

    Reduces the time it takes to return to the user’s session when using the Photo screensaver, making it comparable to other screensavers.
    •

    Removes the delay that sometimes occurs when a user unlocks their PC.
    •

    Improves overall media performance by reducing many glitches.
    •

    In SP1, PC administrators are able to modify the network throttling index value for the MMCSS (Multimedia Class Scheduling Service), allowing them to determine the appropriate balance between network performance and audio/video playback quality.
    •

    Windows Vista SP1 includes a new compression algorithm for the RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) that helps reduce network bandwidth required to send bitmaps or images via RDP. The compression, which can be selected by administrators via Group Policy settings, is transparent to all RDP traffic, and typically reduces the size of the RDP stream by as much as 25-60%, based on preliminary test results.
    •

    The Windows Vista SP1 install process clears the user-specific data that is used by Windows to optimize performance, which may make the system feel less responsive immediately after install. As the customer uses their SP1 PC, the system will be retrained over the course of a few hours or days and will return to the previous level of responsiveness.
    •

    SP1 addresses a number of customer performance concerns with new print driver technologies, including XPS-based printing.

    stigweard on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Wow, so basically Vista SP1 will lie to people. Or is withholding accurate information technically not a lie? I think I'll just smile and nod if someone asks me what's up.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Wow, so basically Vista SP1 will lie to people. Or is withholding accurate information technically not a lie? I think I'll just smile and nod if someone asks me what's up.

    It's not a lie at all, just a less useful but more easily understood metric.

    "The architecture of a 32-bit OS only allows it to use 3.2gb of RAM, but the BIOS and system can utilize the rest for other things" is much more difficult to explain than "Your system has 4gb installed".

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Wow, so basically Vista SP1 will lie to people. Or is withholding accurate information technically not a lie? I think I'll just smile and nod if someone asks me what's up.

    It's not a lie at all, just a less useful but more easily understood metric.

    "The architecture of a 32-bit OS only allows it to use 3.2gb of RAM, but the BIOS and system can utilize the rest for other things" is much more difficult to explain than "Your system has 4gb installed".

    I guess it doesn't really matter for most people, but I'd hate to run into a situation where someone was sold a computer with 8 gigs installed, and less than half of it accessible. I guess 64-bit Vista might come into vogue in stores soon enough though.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.