Comments on: Performance testing Vista: misleading reporting of inadequate tests. http://www.itwriting.com/blog/425-performance-testing-vista-misleading-reporting-of-inadequate-tests.html Tech writing blog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:04:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ian http://www.itwriting.com/blog/425-performance-testing-vista-misleading-reporting-of-inadequate-tests.html/comment-page-1#comment-49590 Ian Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:31:42 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=425#comment-49590 I am a sysadmin who uses Vista Business with the classic interface, UAC off, and Defender and indexing disabled. The OS feels quick, has been stable and I love the new system/resource monitoring tools. I find that I need to make less changes to Vista than XP Pro to make it run cleanly and quickly. I am a sysadmin who uses Vista Business with the classic interface, UAC off, and Defender and indexing disabled. The OS feels quick, has been stable and I love the new system/resource monitoring tools.

I find that I need to make less changes to Vista than XP Pro to make it run cleanly and quickly.

]]> By: Tim http://www.itwriting.com/blog/425-performance-testing-vista-misleading-reporting-of-inadequate-tests.html/comment-page-1#comment-48510 Tim Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:38:27 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=425#comment-48510 <blockquote> I don’t understand *why* these “fancy graphics” require extra CPU load. </blockquote> A point well made, particularly since Vista makes use of DirectX. It's still a problem for performance tests though. When you enable Aero, you also enable the DWM (Desktop Window Manager) which draws windows to an off-screen buffer; it's a major change to how screens are rendered. In principle it could actually improve performance over XP. But what do we want to compare: Vista vs XP, or DWM vs old-style window painting? The simplistic performance test is just not very interesting. Tim

I don’t understand *why* these “fancy graphics” require extra CPU load.

A point well made, particularly since Vista makes use of DirectX. It’s still a problem for performance tests though. When you enable Aero, you also enable the DWM (Desktop Window Manager) which draws windows to an off-screen buffer; it’s a major change to how screens are rendered. In principle it could actually improve performance over XP. But what do we want to compare: Vista vs XP, or DWM vs old-style window painting? The simplistic performance test is just not very interesting.

Tim

]]> By: Benjie Gillam http://www.itwriting.com/blog/425-performance-testing-vista-misleading-reporting-of-inadequate-tests.html/comment-page-1#comment-48499 Benjie Gillam Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:10:22 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=425#comment-48499 I don't understand *why* these "fancy graphics" require extra CPU load. Graphics cards are so powerful these days, and their processors underused. Their 2D performance has improved very little over the last decade, but their 3D performance is through the roof! Linux based compositing technologies, such as <a href='http://www.compiz-fusion.org/' rel="nofollow">Compiz-Fusion</a>, actually <b>speed up</b> your desktop by offloading the drawing work to the graphics processor, freeing up the CPU to calculate your spreadsheets (for example) faster. Even with "wobbly windows" etc. my computer running Linux (Ubuntu Gutsy) renders massively faster than it does under either Vista or XP. So, do not jump to the conclusion that <blockquote> "Second, Vista has richer graphics than XP [...] so you would expect screen operations to be slower." </blockquote> - this does not have to be true. By the way, I found your post through the <a href='http://blogfriends.i-together.com/' title='Blog Friends Facebook Application' rel="nofollow">Blog Friends</a> facebook application. I don’t understand *why* these “fancy graphics” require extra CPU load. Graphics cards are so powerful these days, and their processors underused. Their 2D performance has improved very little over the last decade, but their 3D performance is through the roof! Linux based compositing technologies, such as Compiz-Fusion, actually speed up your desktop by offloading the drawing work to the graphics processor, freeing up the CPU to calculate your spreadsheets (for example) faster. Even with “wobbly windows” etc. my computer running Linux (Ubuntu Gutsy) renders massively faster than it does under either Vista or XP. So, do not jump to the conclusion that

“Second, Vista has richer graphics than XP [...] so you would expect screen operations to be slower.”

- this does not have to be true.

By the way, I found your post through the Blog Friends facebook application.

]]> By: Charles http://www.itwriting.com/blog/425-performance-testing-vista-misleading-reporting-of-inadequate-tests.html/comment-page-1#comment-48496 Charles Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:48:28 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=425#comment-48496 Hmm.. <i>You could conduct a more useful test by configuring Vista to work as much as possible like XP. Turn off UAC, turn off Aero, turn off the indexer, turn off visual effects.</i> But as you then say, that's not how Vista is for people. If flashy graphics and indexers don't get out of the way, people get frustrated - with both Vista *and* Leopard. Don't have to look far for people who aren't delighted with Apple's latest meisterwerk. Hmm.. You could conduct a more useful test by configuring Vista to work as much as possible like XP. Turn off UAC, turn off Aero, turn off the indexer, turn off visual effects.

But as you then say, that’s not how Vista is for people. If flashy graphics and indexers don’t get out of the way, people get frustrated – with both Vista *and* Leopard. Don’t have to look far for people who aren’t delighted with Apple’s latest meisterwerk.

]]>