Myths about Vista

On 2007-09-30 23:06, shamantrixx wrote:
it's all fine and I mostly agree with you... but few things are to keep in mind:

1. switch to Vista requires hardware upgrades unless you have a relatively new PC. Better hardware would boost XP performance as well but it's a widespread custom to invest in hardware in order to run new OS. When done in that manner it's hard to judge what exactly boosted performance. Compatibility of OS with hardware, new hardware it self or is it really the OS. Most likely it's a combination.

2. switch from 32 to 64bit should DOUBLE the efficiency of RAM and processing power. Non of the tests go even near double performance.

3. how much will you really benefit from 10 to 15% increase in computing power, is the price and effort worth it, and last but not the least - if current OS is stable and provides a good work flow it's close to insane to risk that for 10 or 15% of boost and possibly have less stable DAW and less money in your pocket. One freeze of DAW can cause more than 15% of decrease in amount of work on the end of the day. Developing paranoia that goes along is also something that I don't need.

In the end we'll all have to switch to Vista or consider a Mac OS. Soon there will be new applications that will not support XP and in that way software and hardware reinforce each other. We've seen it with Win 3.11, Win 95 and Win 98. XP will be no exception. They always win - we always loose. But 2 or 3 years from now you'll have to upgrade your PC one way or the other. By than it will be cheap and stable OS and expected investment in hardware. At this time it's far from safe, it's quite expensive, and beside "cool new look" there's hardly any benefit worth even thinking about it.

On 2007-10-01 09:17, subconsciousmind wrote:

4: "XP only support 3Gigs of Ram Vista doesn't"

Originally Posted by jds:

Quote:

When you see two completely different results it makes me wonder who is correct. The Rain site mentioned that their systems were optimized for audio, as the DAW Bench site stated they wanted to use the entire new GUI that Vista had to offer while also using audio applications. The Rain tests were also performed on a Quad core machine, which XP doesn't understand very well. That may explain the major difference between the tests. My concusion is that both tests are correct and that is probably isn't possible to use Areo with 'hard-core' audio and that modern processors and other optimizations will be required to match or exceed the performance of XP. David

Hey David,

I am the person who developed and ran all of the tests, and posted the reports, so I will answer all of the queries directly..

I thought I had been pretty clear in the reports, but obviously there is still some confusion

I stated in my reports that all of the O.S's have been optimised, in Part I, I reported results for a tweaked Aero and Vista Basic, and noted the performance variable that Aero imposed.

All Vista results that are not clearly stated as Aero is using Vista Basic.

Also in regards optimisations, Rain claim that even a Vanilla install of Vista still outperformed an optimised XP , which is ridiculous in light of any and all other experiences reported by not only myself , but any other end user who has contributed quantifiable results.

Note , all of my tests were run on a near identical Quadcore system to Rains - Q6700 CPU / i975 chipset.


The Whole debate about XP not performing with Quadcores has absolutely no quantifiable foundation, Rains conclusions were based on a flawed baseline results when the RME Fireface tanked on XP , if they had cross referenced the results with another audio interface, the results would have been dramatically different.

Its as simple as that..

I have discussed this in detail with the person from Rain responsible for the testing and results, I won't go into the detail again here, anyone who is interested in seeing that exchange can read it on the Sound On Sound Forum - Link is available in the first report.., I won't post it here.

They placed a disclaimer on the website after I posted my first report, but have not retracted , clarified or even posted any updated results since being called on the discrepancies. I on the other hand have continued testing on multiple applications, cross referencing with multiple audio interfaces, and have made the tests publically available , so anyone who has the time and energy to run the tests themselves, can easily quantify my results..

There are no smoke and mirrors here..

I have yet to see a report from an end user that do not correlate my results.

You are quite welcome to form your own conclusions, but you can't simply state that both results are correct , when it does not in any way correlate with the available and expanding data base of results..

Peace:

V:

On 2007-10-01 23:45, shamantrixx wrote:
i never said that overall speed should double.

On 2007-09-30 23:06, shamantrixx wrote:

switch from 32 to 64bit should DOUBLE the efficiency of RAM and processing power.

On 2007-10-01 23:45, shamantrixx wrote:
Ram efficiency should double

On 2007-09-28 18:27, shamantrixx wrote:

but please... correct me if I'm wrong!