Another reason to hate Vista

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, you just said your Raptor's do 148MB/sec using "HD Tune Pro", yet in your previous post, you say you have them in a RAID0, which DOUBLES the throughput of the drives. SO, that would mean that the throughput of a SINGLE drive is ~75MB/sec, which is on-par for a 10,000RPM drive.

And you are putting words in my mouth, I didn't say there wasn't a difference, I said the BIGGEST difference is SEEK TIME.

Why do you think Hard Drives have cache? Why do you think that the size of the cache on HDD's has been growing over the last few years? Because, as you mentioned, hard drives are SLOW! The sustainable throughput on a hard drive will always hamper system performance, be it a 5,400RPM drive, 7,200RPM drive, 10,000RPM drive, 15,000RPM drive...etc.

When you are using something that is going to benefit from faster seek times (like Superfetch, database apps, anything that does a lot of seeking), then you will really see the difference.

This would be the reason you have a RAID array would it not?

My Raptor benches the following:
Cached reads: 3395MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 67MB/sec

But my 7,200RPM WD5000 (RE2 w/16MB of cache) benches:
Cached reads: 3441MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 76.05MB/sec

My older 7,200RPM WD1200JD benches:
Cached reads: 3462MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 55.67MB/sec

These were just run with hdparm under Linux, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make. There is NOT a huge difference in THROUGHPUT between a 7,200 and 10,000RPM hard drive.

And I still don't agree on your laptop stance. I have sold enough of them and USED enough of them with Vista to be able to substantiate that statement.

2K runs faster than XP. XP runs faster than Vista. But there is a point at which the difference to the end user is no longer being gauged. If a laptop can run Vista at that speed, then there is no "issue" with running Vista on that hardware.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Anyone use SSD drives with Vista?


Not as a boot drive, as more of a scratch drive for a client of mine who does massive database-oriented market prediction work. We have never benched the throughput on the drive, but access is instantaneous. Drive is made by Samsung.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
OK, you just said your Raptor's do 148MB/sec using "HD Tune Pro", yet in your previous post, you say you have them in a RAID0, which DOUBLES the throughput of the drives. SO, that would mean that the throughput of a SINGLE drive is ~75MB/sec, which is on-par for a 10,000RPM drive.

And you are putting words in my mouth, I didn't say there wasn't a difference, I said the BIGGEST difference is SEEK TIME.

Why do you think Hard Drives have cache? Why do you think that the size of the cache on HDD's has been growing over the last few years? Because, as you mentioned, hard drives are SLOW! The sustainable throughput on a hard drive will always hamper system performance, be it a 5,400RPM drive, 7,200RPM drive, 10,000RPM drive, 15,000RPM drive...etc.

When you are using something that is going to benefit from faster seek times (like Superfetch, database apps, anything that does a lot of seeking), then you will really see the difference.

This would be the reason you have a RAID array would it not?

My Raptor benches the following:
Cached reads: 3395MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 67MB/sec

But my 7,200RPM WD5000 (RE2 w/16MB of cache) benches:
Cached reads: 3441MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 76.05MB/sec

My older 7,200RPM WD1200JD benches:
Cached reads: 3462MB/sec
Buffered Disk reads: 55.67MB/sec

These were just run with hdparm under Linux, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make. There is NOT a huge difference in THROUGHPUT between a 7,200 and 10,000RPM hard drive.

And I still don't agree on your laptop stance. I have sold enough of them and USED enough of them with Vista to be able to substantiate that statement.

2K runs faster than XP. XP runs faster than Vista. But there is a point at which the difference to the end user is no longer being gauged. If a laptop can run Vista at that speed, then there is no "issue" with running Vista on that hardware.




This is what you wrote:
"These machines are all Core2Duo based. HDD rotation speed has far more to do with seek times than it does overall throughput. Even the 10,000RPM Seagate Cheatah SCSI drives didn't have much in the way of a throughput advantage over their 7,200RPM counterparts. It was the seek times that made the difference. When you are loading Windows, you are not counting on seek times, you are counting on data throughput, and the difference between a 5,400RPM and a 7,200RPM drive in terms of data throughput is not significant enough for that statement to hold any water, sorry. "


Its fair to say a faster hard drive will make a difference on a system running any OS but on Vista which is constantly paging it holds more of a benefit. I think its misleading to say a 5400rpm hard drive will show no/little benefit as opposed to a 7,200rpm or even 10,000rpm drive. I dont know maybe im misunderstanding what you wrote but It DOES make a difference. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of Vista wether its on a laptop or desktop and im sure Vista runs fine on the laptops you sell but a faster hard drive will give you faster performance. I agree with you, this reason alone is not a reason to NOT get Vista. Its all up to preference. I was just adding my opinion.
 
Last edited:
My first line of the "This is what you wrote" in your post is what I was trying to get across. Using the numbers I gave you from my personal drives, then if you look up the seek times for the Raptor and the RE2, you will see the Raptor holds a HUGE advantage in seek time over the RE2, yet in data throughput, the RE2 is actually faster!!!

So, if we compare something like a Maxtor 120GB 7,200RPM drive to a 5,400RPM drive, the biggest difference again is seek times, which make the 7,200RPM drive "feel" significantly faster, even though overall throughput really isn't that much slower :D Make sense?

That was the point I was trying to make. A faster drive in rotational speed, makes the system feel more responsive, especially if you are RAM limited, but it's the seek times on the drives that make the difference, which is why drives like the Cheetah are used for databases.

Here are some actual numbers FROM WESTERN DIGITAL that illustrate the point I'm making:

WD RE2 7,200RPM drive:
Rotational Speed 7,200 RPM (nominal)
Buffer Size 16 MB
Average Latency 4.20 ms (nominal)
Start/Stop Cycles 50,000 minimum
Seek Times
Read Seek Time 8.9 ms
Write Seek Time 9.6 ms (average)
Track-To-Track Seek Time 0.6 ms (average)
Full Stroke Seek 21.0 ms (average)
Transfer Rates
Buffer To Host (Serial ATA) 3 Gb/s (Max)
Transfer Rate (Buffer To Disk) 98 MB/s (Sustained)

WD Raptor 10,000RPM Drive:
Rotational Speed 10,000 RPM (nominal)
Buffer Size 16 MB
Average Latency 2.99 ms (nominal)
Start/Stop Cycles 20,000 minimum
Seek Times
Read Seek Time 4.6 ms
Write Seek Time 5.2 ms (average)
Track-To-Track Seek Time 0.4 ms (average)
Full Stroke Seek 10.2 ms (average)
Transfer Rates
Buffer To Host (Serial ATA) 1.5 Gb/s (Max)
Transfer Rate (Buffer To Disk) 84 MB/s (Sustained)



Does what I'm saying make sense now? These are numbers FROM WESTERN DIGITAL. The seek times on the Raptor are HALF of that of the RE2, but the RE2 has a FASTER data throughput than the Raptor!!!
 
The Seagate Barracuda ES.2 (7,200RPM) will do 105MB/sec sustained :D Which is faster than the current Raptor by a wide margin :D Yet their Cheetah 15,000RPM drive maxes out at 125MB/sec.

As I said, rotational speed has more of a bearing on seek times than it does on throughput.

Seek times of that 15K drive is 2ms!!!!
 
Well direct X 10 is only a big deal to gamers. For every 100 people that own a computer maybe 1 is a hard core gamer. Last I checked only a few games where really optimized to take advatage of direct X 10 and 64 bitt dual core processing etc.... My point was that for the average user wich is the bulk of the market Vista does not offer much other then preety interface. You end up spending a lot more then you need too for a very meager improvment in performance for the average read(non-power user).

I am all for change and progress but not just for the sack of change. If anything they should of taken the 64 bit version of XP and simply given it a light upgrade. The only good thing about Vista is that their are now plenty of 64 bit drivers avaialable from vendors so if you decide to use the 64bit version of XP it is not hard to find drivers now.

As to the 3D interface I fail to see where anyone gains anything from a 3D GUI? What is the point? I understand I could buy a cheap laptop then buy some cheap ram and be a happy camper so long as the cheap laptop supported the amount of ram you wanted to use. A lot of the cheap ones only support up to 2GB of ram wich is the minimum for decent Vista performance wich is why so many of them are shipping with 3GB-4GB from the OEM.

I just wish MS would continue to support XP allow it's continued sales since so many people are happy with it. It is not like they could not keep milking that cow with OEM sales to system builders.

I have heard from several friends that in IT as their source of income that Vista can be leaned out a lot. The average user though is not going to be able to do that on their own and just want to take it out of the box and have it work just like their old system.

Yes I tweaked my XP install on my laptop but that is just because I have been useing it since 2001 both at home and at work. I would not begin to know where to start with Vista in all honesty. I just know that my laptop consistently out performs friends laptops that have faster processors with more ram. I do keep my laptop lean and tidy though. I can not say the same thing about my desk though.

I was looking at Crucials SSD's but could not justify the cost at present. If anyone is running one what type of inpact has it had on battery life and over all performance?
 
John:

My comment on the 3D accelerated desktop is that modern video cards are optimized for 3D performance (because of games), even the Intel cards are setup to handle 3D decently well. SO, when you have a desktop that is rendered in 3D (DirectX), the desktop itself is actually "quicker" than the traditional 2D rendered desktop because it takes advantage of the hardware acceleration offered by the graphics card.

Microsoft's stance on XP is the same stance they took with 2K after XP's release. They will work on forcing your hand no matter what feedback they receive. Remember, XP was just a minor version number upgrade (2K was NT5, XP was 5.1) and I have had clients that completely skipped XP and went straight from 2K to Vista because it took that long for them to decide to upgrade their hardware. Doing Vista upgrade testing on THAT was fun :D

XP was to 2K what Vista is to XP. And eventually, the bugs will be worked out (do you remember XP prior to SP2? [censored], prior to SP1?) and people will be complaining about Blackcomb when it debuts.

I was beta testing 2K back in 1998, it was still NT5 then. I have many of the NT5-branded builds still on CD :D A couple years later, trying to convince those running 98 that 2K was a FAR better OS was a fun job, and Microsoft made the situation far worse with the release of ME, which simply confused people. Many had a hard time grasping that 2K and ME were two completely different OS's......

While change is not always good, we do have to remember that with Microsoft, they WILL eventually force you to upgrade. But by that time, your hardware will be almost completely obsolete anyways.

I don't fault people for running XP. Those who aren't upgrading their hardware, are running XP and have a hard time trying to justify an upgrade to Vista, I completely understand. However, on a new system, spec'd with Vista in mind, it's NOT as bad a choice and many portray it as.

I have several mixed environments I support, with 2K, XP AND Vista machines and the integration is, for the most part flawless.
 
Ahh the reason for switching to a Linux variant. More and more online articles are saying that vista will be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. I'm running Fedora 8, which is related to redhat Linux. It works fairly well even thought the wireless card occasionally disconnects.
 
Originally Posted By: 97prizm

Ahh the reason for switching to a Linux variant. More and more online articles are saying that vista will be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. I'm running Fedora 8, which is related to redhat Linux. It works fairly well even thought the wireless card occasionally disconnects.


Linux is great :D I've been running it since the early 90's. I currently run Gentoo on this box.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 97prizm

Ahh the reason for switching to a Linux variant. More and more online articles are saying that vista will be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. I'm running Fedora 8, which is related to redhat Linux. It works fairly well even thought the wireless card occasionally disconnects.


Linux is great :D I've been running it since the early 90's. I currently run Gentoo on this box.


+1 googolplex for Linux!!!!!
 
Linux: it gets better the more features you install.

Vista: it gets better the more features you disable.

Go figure.

Actually, I think Vista's problems stem largely from two sources: 1) Vista was so long in the works that by the time it was released it was something VERY alien to previous Windoze versions--programmers and software engineers were often forced to rewrite their apps/drivers from scratch to get them to work on the new OS. 2) Public concern about real and/or imagined security holes in XP pretty much forced MS to bring a less trusting, more annoying OS to the table.
 
If Vista really is the beginning of the end for Microsoft I think the O/S that will replace Windows will be Mac OS X. In the USA it is likely that some 7.5% of consumer desktop computers are now Macs. For the world as a whole probably something like 3%. In fact, according to some people and companies that do research on market trends, Macs are now some 14-15% of CONSUMER desktop computers (in the USA). This does not count enterprise (business) desktop computers that are mostly Windows except for certain businesses that are very graphic oriented. There are other people and organizations that dispute the 14-15% figures.

In comparison DESKTOP Linux computers (not SERVERS) are less than 1% of desktop computers in the USA according to the best available believable research. When Apple several years ago was down to 2% of the market everybody was saying Apple was going out of business. And they nearly did. So what are we supposed to think about Linux with less than 1% of the market?

People try to play games all the time with statistics. Statistics can be made to lie. At this time I think the figure of 14-15% for Apple is over the top. But it is likely that Apple is 7.5% and perhaps even 8.5% of the market in the USA right now. If Apple keeps selling an ever increasing number of computers it is only a matter of time before the 14-15% figures become reality. At that point Apple would be a fairly strong number 2 and becoming a real force in the marketplace although Microsoft will continue to be number 1 for quite a while.

One thing that would help Apple is if they could increase the percentage of their computers outside of the USA. Worldwide Apple is still low in percentage.

I have been waiting more years then I can remember for Linux to amount to anything. It makes me laugh all the people running Linux who are also either running a Windows XP computer or else running XP on their Linux computer so they can actually have some compatibility with software and hardware. And then they brag to everybody how they can do everything they need to do on their Linux computer. Of course you can run Windows XP on an Intel Mac but even without running Windows XP you can have considerable compatibility with a Mac.

How many years should we give desktop Linux? If somebody hates Microsoft they already have an alternative O/S-the Mac. You can walk into an Apple Store, buy an iMac, and be able to do just about anything you need to do with a computer unless you are running some very specialized software for Windows XP only. Even then you could run Windows XP as well as Mac OS X on a Mac. Since there is already a workable alternative why would anybody want to shoot themself in the foot? I know a few IT people who for the first time talk about buying a MacBook Pro. A few years ago if they owned an Apple computer at home they would not talk about it. I ran Apple Computers at home and did not talk about it at work because people would laugh.
 
My bad-Linux is of course the best O/S in the world. In a couple of years we will see Linux begin to dominate the desktop computer O/S field. You will be a witness to Linux rising from less than 1% market share (desktop computers) to 90% market share in a few years. It will be one of the greatest achievements in technology in history. Indeed, IT will be the greatest achievement in technology in world history. All concerns about software and hardware compatibility will be left behind as everybody jumps onto the Linux streamroller. Linux compatible Software and hardware drivers for scanners and printers will be written for Linux at a furious pace. If you could journey forward into time you would not recognize the new desktop computer reality.

The Dark Empire and those other computer companies (what were their names?) will be forgotten history. May the Force be with you.
 
Microsoft with Windows 7 need to put it out as OEM only, wait six months to a year then release it at retail, set the requirements bar at what it needs to run well, not run at all, thoroughly work it out and worry less about features and protecting users from themselves and more about a simple, clean, fast interface without pre-fetching, RAM hogging, pretty graphics, UAC popups, etc.

Encourage manufacturers to not load it down with trialware and proprietary "assistance center" software.

Only release it as a 64-bit OS, make sure the drivers are there before hand, and have at it. They need to take the OS to a level they have better control of the finished hardware and configuration.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
My bad-Linux is of course the best O/S in the world. In a couple of years we will see Linux begin to dominate the desktop computer O/S field. You will be a witness to Linux rising from less than 1% market share (desktop computers) to 90% market share in a few years. It will be one of the greatest achievements in technology in history. Indeed, IT will be the greatest achievement in technology in world history. All concerns about software and hardware compatibility will be left behind as everybody jumps onto the Linux streamroller. Linux compatible Software and hardware drivers for scanners and printers will be written for Linux at a furious pace. If you could journey forward into time you would not recognize the new desktop computer reality.

The Dark Empire and those other computer companies (what were their names?) will be forgotten history. May the Force be with you.


You do realize that OSX is based heavily on FreeBSD right? Another free *NIX variant.........
 
Yes, I do realize that Mac OS X is based to some extent on FreeBSD. But there is a difference. Let me explain.

It is completely acceptable to pound Microsoft. People say negative stuff about Microsoft all the time. I can understand this to some extent-certainly Microsoft has not always been a model citizen. And everybody wants to go after the top dog and bring the top dog down. Since Microsoft dominates the desktop personal computer O/S world everybody is going after Microsoft.

It is somewhat acceptable to pound Apple. Although if you do say anything negative about Apple you will soon have the Mac fanatics after you. If you bring up a good point about some failing in Mac OS X or Apple Computers or whatever they are still going to go after you. No matter how valid your point might be. Free debate about Apple is not really allowed.

Better be really careful if you pound Linux. Regardless how valid your point/points might be. Free debate about Linux is NOT allowed! Say anything negative about Linux and the attack dogs will be after you.

I truly believe that the best current O/Ss for desktop computers are Windows and Mac OS X. Perhaps someday Linux O/Ss will be just as good. There are various computer O/Ss that make for good server computers, including Linux. At one time I was seriously considering switching to Linux myself.

I used to spend a lot of time at various Linux websites. I visited one website where there was a list of scanners and printers compatible with Linux. It seemed like a SLOW, SLOW process for drivers to be available for Linux. But what really upset me was the incredible amount of outright dishonesty at some of those websites and the crazed people at some of those websites. Information was posted at some sites that was clearly inaccurate. Visitors were being feed an incredible amount of flat out inaccurate information. And there was a level of crazed hatred at some sites towards Microsoft in particular that was disturbing to me. It was insane stuff. It is really, really silly to hate corporations and computer O/Ss. After a few years of that I left in total disgust. Fanatics make me uneasy. I had WANTED to switch to Linux.

Want to find out how bad it really is? Go ahead and say a few negative things about Linux. If the Linux people really expect to make progress they are going to have to allow open debate. They are going to have to allow honest debate about the good and the bad aspects of Linux O/Ss. And there are continuing problems with Linux O/Ss that require solutions. Hiding problems under the rug or being dishonest about Linux market share are not going to solve anything. Am I wrong?
 
I've never had the experience you have in that regard, sorry?

I've been using Microsoft OS's since 1988, I've been using *nix variants since the early to mid 90's.

I don't condemn Microsoft, in fact, I don't think I've actually posted ANYTHING anti-Microsoft on this site???

But I DO run Linux as my desktop OS.

Linux is challenging. Windows, being well-suited for the majority of computers, is pretty bloody simple.

I deal with Windows every day. I run Vista on my laptop, 99% of my client systems are Windows-based.

Windows dominates the desktop market.

But to ignore the fact that Linux has come LEAPS AND BOUNDS in the last 5 years would be a disservice to the product.

- Is Linux more difficult to setup than Windows? Yes

- Is Linux more secure than Windows? Yes

- Does Linux have the ability to run a LOT of Windows software via software like Wine/Cedega/CXOffice? YES

- Can you just run a stand-alone Windows install for software that just won't run on Linux, even using the emulation software? YES, VMWare is a good example.

- Does Linux have better multi-processing support than Windows? Yes

- Does Linux handle large amounts of RAM better than Windows? Yes

- Does Linux handle multimedia peripherals as well as Windows? NO

- Does Linux handle things like secure memory sticks, USB drives and the like as well as Windows? No

- Does Linux handle printing as well as Windows? No

- Does Linux handle the graphical desktop as well as Windows? YES, and I would say with Compiz-Fusion, it's even better.


These are some of the things I could think of off the top of my head.

OSX is no more "friendly" in many aspects than Linux is. There are times when you have to revert to using the shell, and for users who NEVER use the console and have no idea HOW to use it, to classify this as daunting is putting it mildly.

Hardware support in OSX is also worse than Linux!

But it DOES say Mac on it, so it's gotta be good, right?

Even these massive marketing endeavours that Apple has been successful with in moving the iPod, it hasn't seemed to help them sell systems. Even now that they are basically hardware-identical to their Windows cousins..... Costing twice as much for the same hardware can be a hard sell.......

In the big scheme of things, there really isn't a huge difference between having Ubuntu or OSX..... As the list of supported hardware is in Ubuntu's favour and the list of supported software is really a toss-up........
 
Wow, OVERKILL, I am impressed! For a change somebody who likes Linux provides facts and figures rather than Cult of Linux type personal attacks! Good job! They should have you promoting Linux!

Let me tell you where I am coming from. For many years I ran Apple Computers at home and we had Windows and Unix at work. I made the mistake of telling a few people a few times that I was running Apple Computers at home and back in those days people would laugh if they heard that you were using Apple Computers. I never became an Apple Fan Boy and I never hung a photograph of Steve Jobs on my wall. But I liked Macs and considered them better at least to Windows O/Ss like Windows 95 and Windows 98. I guess I was kind of a rebel.

For a while I seriously considered Linux. I needed good hardware support for scanners and printers which did not seem to exist. A lot of the Linux websites disturbed me because of inaccurate information and some crazy people.

I think Windows has become a lot better. But there are still issues. If Vista fails I don't think it will be because of problems in the O/S but rather because of human perception issues. I am not a diehard Microsoft guy either but it disturbs me that there are endless attacks on Microsoft and Microsoft software but if anybody says anything negative about Mac OS X or Linux O/Ss they may experience personal attacks.

In the end all of this computer technology from Microsoft, Apple, Sun MicroSystems, open source, whatever is just technology and all of it someday will be in museums. People in the future will probably laugh at the crude computer technology that we had.

I agree with you that Apple Computers are pretty expensive compared to Windows computers. And it has been my experience that when Apple comes out with a new O/S they don't seem to me to worry very much if a person's software and hardware is still compatible. So being able to run Windows XP on an Intel Mac is a plus. The iMac is not too bad in price but the Mac Pro is out of sight. But it can run up to 32 GB of RAM (if somebody could afford that) and it is a nice computer. All of the Windows computers I know about max out at 4 GB.

I do use Terminal and the Unix command line to some extent in Mac OS X. The command line makes it possible to do things like the daily, weekly, and monthly maintenance tasks that don't get done on many Apple Computers unless they are running 24/7.

I am so happy and surprised to see somebody promoting Linux with useful facts and information instead of personal attacks. It really would be good for Linux O/Ss to be successful and open source software to be successful so that there would be better competition and lower prices. Microsoft is a pain in a lot of ways and maybe would become less of a pain with a little competition. We would probably all be better off if there was good competition from several different O/Ss. Prices would come down and there would be better security.

You really made my day. You made me feel happy. Thanks for being a logical, good supporter of Linux.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Upgrade XP/Vista to Windows 10 FREE also
2 3
Replies
43
Views
18K
Cutehumor
J
  • Locked
Anybody running Windows XP Black Edition?
2
Replies
26
Views
9K
redhat
O
  • Locked
Media center computer with win 7 or 8 It has Vista
Replies
2
Views
1K
barlowc
A
  • Locked
To upgrade/rebuild or go new?
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
wander2039
N
  • Locked
Your computers over the years
2
Replies
39
Views
20K
Win
Back
Top Bottom