Bits Windows Vista SP1 Core Performance

I too am somewhat worried at the idea of a key feature such as superfetch being turned off.

However, as I understand it, this will give a "worst-case" scenario which assumes a fresh install of an app, before superfetch has had a chance to "see" the application and develop an idea of the patterns of use for that application.

Thus, the tests being run by bit-tech would approximate the first ever run of an application on a vista computer, with successive tests yielding better results.

Actually, is there an article in there, or has it already been done (Superfetch and its effects on gaming performance)?

 

I haven't done any benchmarking but from my personal experience on my home network of two hugely different Vista desktops and a nasty old slow Vista laptop I'd have to disagree with the results of your tests. On all three computers I have seen vast inprovements in performance across many of those categories.

Just for example pre-SP1 bootup on my Vista box was torture, I had to sit and wait a few minutes for my network to connect. I eventually disabled all startup programs AVG, anti-spyware and even down to Windows Sidebar just to be able to use my PC immediately on boot.

After SP1 bootup is almost instant, I can turn on the PC and watch as my system tray fills with icons in a second flat. I don't even bother stopping worthless items like Adobe speed launcher because it's so fast now.

Same with file copying, I would get up and go for a walk if I knew I was going to move some files around Pre-SP1, now I can just wait while the copy completes.

 

Welcome!

When I first tested with Vista I didn't turn either off and as a consequence results were massively inconsistent, sometimes taking two/three times longer, sometimes shorter, on consecutive runs of the same real world programs we use for motherboard testing. MS may have improved it since, but compared to XP it still couldn't come close and it made seeing the fine differences in testing a nightmare. If you've got more than enough memory (2GBs are dirt cheap) and a defragged, fast hard drive I'd suggest the differences are questionable. It's also dependent on how you use a PC.

 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here... that if you have enough memory and a defragged HDD that you don't need Superfetch?

Defragged disks are good - no argument there. But the more RAM you have, the better SuperFetch performs. Many people think that if their most demanding app needs less than 2GB, then 2GB RAM is all that is needed, but if you have, say, 4GB, you can keep 2GB clear for your apps and 2GB for the OS & SuperFetch. The more RAM yo have, the better SuperFetch can prepare for your next action(s).

 

As I read all these comments bashing Vista like a bad cocaine habit I can't help wondering...

I took my first tentative trials of Vista while it was still going by its codename; Longhorn. As Vista eventually matured and went RTM I got hold of and installed the UItimate version - and I have never looked towards my XP discs again. Sure, driver support was rubbish at first and it was riddled with bugs - but this was also the case with XP when it was fresh on the shelves. (I also tried out XP while it was still going under the name "Whistler").

I do not have the benchmarks to prove it, but I am certain my system runs far better on Vista than it did on XP - it most definitely feels way more responsive. I have none of the common gaming issues seeming to plague Vista users everywhere if we are to believe the hype, and on a whole it is my honest opinion that Vista is a far better system than XP ever was. I agree that SP1 seemingly did not have a profound effect on gaming performance, but booting time and general core system performance is another matter. I am quite certain (again I don't have the numbers to prove it) that it boots noticeably faster than before, and I am also certain that file management is faster. As I said; the whole system feels much more alive and responsive. I am currently running the 32bit version from a Raptor RAID0. As soon as my Reaper 4Gb kit arrives I will be going 64bit finally.

I do have one strange problem though; I am only able to use the 169.01 (I'm at work so I may not have remembered the version number correctly) version Nvidia driver for my GTS. I have tried all the newer ones, and each attempt with a newer driver presents me with a black screen after Vista has loaded. I get to see the loading screen and everything up to that point, but when it's going to desktop the screen goes black. My monitor is the Benq G2400W. Any ideas?

 

Sorry - if you have enough memory ReadyBoost is negligible iirc.

Superfetch may chuck lots into ram, but it's using the hard drive to pull everything off when it likes, which generally messes with results because it's just not clever enough. It wholly depends on what software you use and how you use it.

But the point is - for OUR RESULTS, the small differences would be lost or I would be here forever trying to get accurate, reliable data.

 

Excellent article overall,

I think the underlying picture that the world over is getting to is that Vista is a minor upgrade to XP and has not gone far enough in raising the users overall experience with the OS.

quote: "We can do it on Internet and FTP transfers so why not when the drive is within arm’s reach not the other side of the world? "

And this SP1 again underlines these points and in fact, the major performance increases should be seen as bugs that needed to be fixed as the poor performance pre-SP1 was really intolerable. Now it is just acceptable.

Something must change at M$ otherwise the market is ripe for a major shakeup should somebody release an OS that can cover the same user/computer base as Vista does.

 

Yeah, we're not debating that.

If you have slow or poorly maintained disks, the effect of SuperFetch will be somewhat muted because the drives won't be able to adequately feed both the live applications and SuperFetch. However if you have a 7200rpm SATA II drive that is defragged, most of the time SuperFetch will be be able to pull enough stuff off the disk to feed the live application and some anticipated future applications.]

SuperFetch works. It's not perfect, but in most circumstances it is of benefit. I've yet to read anywhere that SuperFetch isn't an improvement on any previous caching tecnologies and I've yet to read of any circumstances where disabling SuperFetch would be beneficial.

The point is you have foregone potentially variable test results in favour of *inaccurate, unreliable* but consistent results. It was a decision of convenience.

I understand what you guys are saying about the difficulty of (and effort involved in) preparing a suitable test environment, but given the nature of technologies like SuperFetch there are no shortcuts.

The only thing I could have recommended was that you create basic XP and Vista test machines, and use each for similar purposes for a day, and then run the tests. Sure, depending what each machine had been used for, the impact of SuperFetch would have varied, but such is life. They would have been valid, real-world results though.

I think this sums up the problem with Vista. Too few people actually realise what has changed in Vista - Vista is a major shake-up of MS's x86/x64 platforms. There are radical changes under the bonnet that will form the foundations of future software, but because there isn't enough bling to appeal to Joe Public. XP set the bar so high that peoples expectations have become rather unrealistic. Things dont ever get faster... if there is more power at hand it simply means that we do more in the time available. If anyone remembers WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS... it ran like the proverbial off the shovel and did everything that we needed. But we are quite happy to use the bloated behemoth that is Word 2007. Things get bigger, not faster.

The fact is that Vista was in a better state at launch than XP was. It's a good OS. Yes, it bloated like all MS software, but that is the nature of the beast from Redmond. Vista also performs at least as good as XP did on the standard hardware that was available at the time of launch.

I realise that I sound like a hardcore Vista evangelist, but the fact is that there is plenty about Vista that I am critical of, but nobody has got far enough past "Meh, it's slower than XP!" to actually discuss it with me. I'm pissed off with the wasted opportunity presented by UAC, I think there are too many levels under the control panel, I think the network tools are over-simplified, yet confusing, and I disagree with them promoting Sleep in an age when we are told not to leave our TVs on Standby.

 

But... none of that is relevant if you cant even install SP1...

 

You're recommending a massive amount of testing time no serious site has spare. As it is that article took me two solid 12 hour days obtain accurate results. What you're asking for is the creation of an artificial and massive variable - how long do I use the machine, how much do I use the software, do I defrag during or after it, what about other people installing other programs, what about the processes done WITHIN those programs, do I use a machine how others do, how many programs should be installed to make it "real world"? It's an impossible number to quantify accurately.

The results are not inaccurate and unreliable, what you're asking for is infeasible, inaccurate and unreliable for the sake of a single caching feature. What would comparative results tell you if they were all over the place? Since we're comparing within the Vista environment it doesn't make any difference since, in theory, it should work the same throughout. We're not comparing Vista to OSX here.

 

True.

To be fair, I'm thinking ahead to the upcoming XP vs Vista article. Disabling Superfetch in the last two benchmarks is clearly more forgiveable, though we can't be sure on it's impact.

Some examples of how other sites benchmarked Vista:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page2.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096942,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128305-page,1-c,vistalonghorn/article.html

No other benchmarking article mentions disabling SuperFetch, and Toms hardware even goes to the trouble of explaining how their test environment was prepared, on order to take advantage of the real-world benefits of SuperFetch.

I don't have a monopoly on wisdom, and I can't begin to predict the performance difference with SuperFetch enabled, but it seems clear that BT is the only site that disables a key feature like SuperFetch in such a situation.

Anyway, I've said enough; you're either convinced or you are not, and I'm sure everybody else is sick of me hogging this thread, so I guess I've said my bit.

 

Wow, I was afraid I would have big problems too. I only had to deal with telling the firewall it was ok to install. Good luck with that!!!

 

Well, i've given up - after 2 hours with M$ tech support last night and not finding a solution, i just dont care anymore. I'm going to re-install at some point, but whether I go back to XP or not has yet to be decided...

 

@vaderag, this is of topic and should be in it's own thread, but...
If you don't see SP1, in Windows update, then Microsoft is telling you "Hey, look, I know SP1 is all great an all, but you have a product from a dumb ass company that don't like to support their old hardware because they think you are stupid enough will go buy their new product, when in reality you will understand that these are very bad business practices. So if you install SP1, some sever problems will occur. Either the device won't work, or you will get a BSOD."

 

Lol - it is in the list... it just stops installing with error 80073712 - millions of others seem to have had it, and nobody has found a solution...
EDIT: Have broken this off into another thread: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?p=1696276