Will You Buy MS Vista

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Of course I'm going to get Vista when it comes out. I really need those DRM features, so Microsoft can control what I do.

MS is supporting drm so you will be able to enjoy the new HD dvd's. If they didnt you wouldnt be able to play them. Its not their fault.

I wish Anandtech would do an article on this so these idiotic posts would stop.

I plan on getting vista btw.

If what he meant by his sarcasm was that he's actually planning on abandoning windows in favour of another platform (as many seem intent on doing, we'll have to see how many actually succeed), then his point was reasonable. Given the knowledge that you couldn't watch the highest quality without microsoft support, it is still possible to prefer that microsoft didn't support the drm.

In retrospect, think of the free marketing hype microsoft could have gotten if they'd made a show of prentending to fight the media industry on behalf of their customer's rights. They'd still give in, in the end, but it certainly would have convinced enough people to dull the general anger that's being expressed.

Then they would loose all the people that actually want to enjoy hd-dvd on their pc

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: kamper
In retrospect, think of the free marketing hype microsoft could have gotten if they'd made a show of prentending to fight the media industry on behalf of their customer's rights. They'd still give in, in the end, but it certainly would have convinced enough people to dull the general anger that's being expressed.

Then they would loose all the people that actually want to enjoy hd-dvd on their pc

No they wouldn't, cause they'd still implement it I'm not saying I like the idea. Just sarcastically wondering why ms didn't try it.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: kamper
In retrospect, think of the free marketing hype microsoft could have gotten if they'd made a show of prentending to fight the media industry on behalf of their customer's rights. They'd still give in, in the end, but it certainly would have convinced enough people to dull the general anger that's being expressed.

Then they would loose all the people that actually want to enjoy hd-dvd on their pc

No they wouldn't, cause they'd still implement it I'm not saying I like the idea. Just sarcastically wondering why ms didn't try it.

They are Microsoft, they don't need you as a customer to be satesfied with them, it's fine with them if you are happy, but that's not their goal, they know that the result will be that they will end up implementing the DRM anyway so they didn't think it's even worth it to bother making themselves look good infront of the customers, when a company is in the position of MS customers are obliged to choose / use thier products wither they are stesfied with it or not .
I mean how many ppl you hear wining about windows ? A lot, how many of those have another option ? Not much.

 

[PorscheMaD911]

I've used MS stuff right from MS-DOS 1.2 on my old Amstrad up to Windows XP Pro on my current rig.

However, now that I've been running GNU/Linux for the past few months, I don't think I could face using an MS O/S again. Seriously.

 

[PorscheMaD911]

Snap of my FC 4 Setup.[/quote]

That's a pretty snazzy looking desktop! Nice ...

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: PorscheMaD911
I've used MS stuff right from MS-DOS 1.2 on my old Amstrad up to Windows XP Pro on my current rig.

However, now that I've been running GNU/Linux for the past few months, I don't think I could face using an MS O/S again. Seriously.

i used to have a 4 or 8mhz amstrad.

what was their gui called? i remember some old windows based system.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
Yes the networking stack is NUTS! Very fast. It has been clocked at 40x as fast as XP but those are in very specific circumstances between two Vista boxes running native apps that leverage the new network stack. For day to day, on a modern machine you should still be able to notice some speed improvements simply surfing the web.

I'll admit this is the first I'm hearing of this improved stack but what you've stated sounds a little tgtbt. If a vista app is beating an xp app in network usage by 40x (hell, even 4x) the bigger issue is why something on xp was failing to use the vast majority of available bandwidth. Especially if you're claiming that the bottleneck is one of the most fundamentally important pieces of any modern operating system instead of just poor application programming.

And improved web browsing? The time the data spends in the kernel is obviously minute compared to the time it spends out on the network so I can't see any improvements being noticeable unless it's vista running on the backbone routers out there. I'd bet browser rendering time is longer than kernel network handling.

Why don't you just come out and say Bullsh*t?

I'm on the networking team here at MS and I support Vista today. I'm telling you the gospel. Take it or leave it.

There is nothing wrong with the current network stack in XP (if there was the *nix zealots would eat us alive don't you think?). The Vista stack is just faster.

The 40x improvements are the result of apps written to leverage the new NetIO stack. In a file transfer between 2003 and Vista the file transfers can be faster but the application performing the transfer often becomes the bottleneck. In testing we used an app that effectively dumped data to the network stack as fast as possible. It's going to take a few years for developers to truly understand NetIO and rewrite their apps.

 

[Smilin]

for joo all:

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=117938

 

[JonnyBlaze]

After using vista last week I thought the network seemed faster. Nice to know I wasnt imagining it.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: PorscheMaD911
Snap of my FC 4 Setup.

That's a pretty snazzy looking desktop! Nice ...
[/quote]


Well thank you.

Actually you are a few clicks away from your own well organized and clean GUI : Link 1

Link 2

And just to make you as a user get what you need :Link
And some manuals for the hell of it Link

 

[piasabird]

Wait for a review of the final release. It is still Beta, so why bother. There could be all kinds of program and hardware compatibility issues.

 

[Canterwood]

Certainly wont buy a copy of Vista (unless they drop activation, which aint gonna happen)

Probably get a VLK version through work to play with and evaluate though.

 

[foodfightr]

I like being on the edge of the trend so I will certianly give it a try.

As long as you keep your security setup nice and tight, I wouldn't worry about the 2-3 massive flaws we'll expect to see the first year.

hrm... plug and play anybody?

 

[tw1164]

I will, it looks like having a HTPC w/ cable cards will require it

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Of course I'm going to get Vista when it comes out. I really need those DRM features, so Microsoft can control what I do.

MS is supporting drm so you will be able to enjoy the new HD dvd's. If they didnt you wouldnt be able to play them. Its not their fault.

I wish Anandtech would do an article on this so these idiotic posts would stop.

I plan on getting vista btw.

If what he meant by his sarcasm was that he's actually planning on abandoning windows in favour of another platform (as many seem intent on doing, we'll have to see how many actually succeed), then his point was reasonable. Given the knowledge that you couldn't watch the highest quality without microsoft support, it is still possible to prefer that microsoft didn't support the drm.

In retrospect, think of the free marketing hype microsoft could have gotten if they'd made a show of prentending to fight the media industry on behalf of their customer's rights. They'd still give in, in the end, but it certainly would have convinced enough people to dull the general anger that's being expressed.

Then they would loose all the people that actually want to enjoy hd-dvd on their pc

No they wouldn't. Who would stop buying Vista just because it didn't support DRM? People need an operating system more than they need to watch HD video on their computers. So by not supporting DRM they would help cause the failure of the next generation of HD media, then the media industry would have to come out with something more consumer friendly. Even with Microsoft's collaboration it still might fail. Divx discs failed because of their DRM scheme, and no one supported it besides Circuit City.

 

[clickynext]

Yes, everyone's going to get it eventually so why delay?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
Yes the networking stack is NUTS! Very fast. It has been clocked at 40x as fast as XP but those are in very specific circumstances between two Vista boxes running native apps that leverage the new network stack. For day to day, on a modern machine you should still be able to notice some speed improvements simply surfing the web.

I'll admit this is the first I'm hearing of this improved stack but what you've stated sounds a little tgtbt. If a vista app is beating an xp app in network usage by 40x (hell, even 4x) the bigger issue is why something on xp was failing to use the vast majority of available bandwidth. Especially if you're claiming that the bottleneck is one of the most fundamentally important pieces of any modern operating system instead of just poor application programming.

And improved web browsing? The time the data spends in the kernel is obviously minute compared to the time it spends out on the network so I can't see any improvements being noticeable unless it's vista running on the backbone routers out there. I'd bet browser rendering time is longer than kernel network handling.

Why don't you just come out and say Bullsh*t?

I'm on the networking team here at MS and I support Vista today. I'm telling you the gospel. Take it or leave it.

There is nothing wrong with the current network stack in XP (if there was the *nix zealots would eat us alive don't you think?). The Vista stack is just faster.

The 40x improvements are the result of apps written to leverage the new NetIO stack. In a file transfer between 2003 and Vista the file transfers can be faster but the application performing the transfer often becomes the bottleneck. In testing we used an app that effectively dumped data to the network stack as fast as possible. It's going to take a few years for developers to truly understand NetIO and rewrite their apps.

So explain it to me please. I'm sure I'm thinking entirely along the wrong lines, but here's what I'm thinking when I read you saying '40x improvments.'

To be honest, the most throughput I've seen on a windows network is transferring large files between machines on a 100mbps lan using smb. I forget the exact numbers but it was something like 80-90% sustained. So obviously vista can't beat that by much without moving up to, say, 10gbps, to allow for the 40x improvment. I don't know how fast filesharing would go on such a network with xp but I have trouble seeing vista go significantly faster.

Like I said though, I'm sure I'm not thinking about the right type of app. I'm assuming you're still talking about a standard tcp/ip network; are we just talking about optimized libs or is this some technology that could actually be implemented by other systems?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin
for joo all:

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=117938

Whoops, missed that. Downloading now and crossing my fingers that it will actually play

Edit: Crap. I had a whole big commentary on the video (although I only got the audio) typed up and then firefox crashed Anyways, the IPsec stuff sounded good (except for that bit about allowing apps like msn to dictate security rules to the network stack) and the bit about the new tcp congestion control algorithm is quite interesting. I might take that over to the networking forum to see what people have to say about it. The bit about the supposed 40x increase in some application was so vague I don't see how it was even worth quoting.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
Yes the networking stack is NUTS! Very fast. It has been clocked at 40x as fast as XP but those are in very specific circumstances between two Vista boxes running native apps that leverage the new network stack. For day to day, on a modern machine you should still be able to notice some speed improvements simply surfing the web.

I'll admit this is the first I'm hearing of this improved stack but what you've stated sounds a little tgtbt. If a vista app is beating an xp app in network usage by 40x (hell, even 4x) the bigger issue is why something on xp was failing to use the vast majority of available bandwidth. Especially if you're claiming that the bottleneck is one of the most fundamentally important pieces of any modern operating system instead of just poor application programming.

And improved web browsing? The time the data spends in the kernel is obviously minute compared to the time it spends out on the network so I can't see any improvements being noticeable unless it's vista running on the backbone routers out there. I'd bet browser rendering time is longer than kernel network handling.

Why don't you just come out and say Bullsh*t?

I'm on the networking team here at MS and I support Vista today. I'm telling you the gospel. Take it or leave it.

There is nothing wrong with the current network stack in XP (if there was the *nix zealots would eat us alive don't you think?). The Vista stack is just faster.

The 40x improvements are the result of apps written to leverage the new NetIO stack. In a file transfer between 2003 and Vista the file transfers can be faster but the application performing the transfer often becomes the bottleneck. In testing we used an app that effectively dumped data to the network stack as fast as possible. It's going to take a few years for developers to truly understand NetIO and rewrite their apps.

So explain it to me please. I'm sure I'm thinking entirely along the wrong lines, but here's what I'm thinking when I read you saying '40x improvments.'

To be honest, the most throughput I've seen on a windows network is transferring large files between machines on a 100mbps lan using smb. I forget the exact numbers but it was something like 80-90% sustained. So obviously vista can't beat that by much without moving up to, say, 10gbps, to allow for the 40x improvment. I don't know how fast filesharing would go on such a network with xp but I have trouble seeing vista go significantly faster.

Like I said though, I'm sure I'm not thinking about the right type of app. I'm assuming you're still talking about a standard tcp/ip network; are we just talking about optimized libs or is this some technology that could actually be implemented by other systems?

Watch the video if you haven't.

There is quite a room for improvement in how TCP/IP is implemented. The Nagle algorithm (not specifically mentioned in video that I remember) for instance is a joke yet everyone (MS Included) uses it as a way to "optimize" TCP/IP. It's not bad I guess but there has got to be a better method.

You may have seen 80-90% efficiency out of SMB over a large file transfer (I'll take your word), but one look at a network trace will tell you SMB efficiency for smaller files and multiple clients hitting those same files with locks definately has room for improvement. Heck to the casual eye, SMB and TCP/IP look like they are puking on themselves just viewing a network share.

Yeah, I'm really not having any difficulty believing in the faster network stack. Most of my Vista work right now is done inside VMs so I miss performance changes. There is a dude around the corner though with like 8 dells stacked up running Vista through it's paces on each and he's seeing much faster performance.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Watch the video if you haven't.

See my post above. I listened to it (trying hard not to make a crack about proprietary codecs here ).

There is quite a room for improvement in how TCP/IP is implemented. The Nagle algorithm (not specifically mentioned in video that I remember) for instance is a joke yet everyone (MS Included) uses it as a way to "optimize" TCP/IP. It's not bad I guess but there has got to be a better method.

Granted. That's why I'm gonna post about this in the networking forum I hope whatever algorithmic improvements you make, you publicly discuss the concepts so that everyone can evaluate it and potentially improve their stacks.

Edit: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=36&threadid=1786501&enterthread=y

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
Watch the video if you haven't.

See my post above. I listened to it (trying hard not to make a crack about proprietary codecs here ).

I watched it without problem using mplayer.

There is quite a room for improvement in how TCP/IP is implemented. The Nagle algorithm (not specifically mentioned in video that I remember) for instance is a joke yet everyone (MS Included) uses it as a way to "optimize" TCP/IP. It's not bad I guess but there has got to be a better method.

Granted. That's why I'm gonna post about this in the networking forum I hope whatever algorithmic improvements you make, you publicly discuss the concepts so that everyone can evaluate it and potentially improve their stacks.

Edit: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=36&threadid=1786501&enterthread=y

Oooh, look at the pretty graphs. I am gonna go home and download Vista now! HAHAHA!

:roll:

 

[niggles]

As long as 64 bit drivers are easily available I will consider buying. Having said that I will not buy it until I hear all the many issues that were there when Win 95/Win 98/Win XP launched. I guess that would probably be about a year after launch judging by their track record to date. Still, no holistic driver base of 64 bit drivers and I'm not interested.... oh... and I suppose I didn't mention that entire video display issue of not playing videos on any non registered monitor. Has that been addressed yet?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: niggles
and I suppose I didn't mention that entire video display issue of not playing videos on any non registered monitor. Has that been addressed yet?

Yes, in this very thread, if you'd bothered to read it.

 

[theMan]

i probably wont get it until 1 year later, maybe less, but probably a year. i am perfectly fine here with windows 2000, and unless i really see a good reason to upgrade, and an OS without bugs, i will upgrade. i also never went to XP (for very long) because it offered no advantage over 2000. why pay for the same OS twice?

 

[spyordie007]

The 40x improvements are the result of apps written to leverage the new NetIO stack. In a file transfer between 2003 and Vista the file transfers can be faster but the application performing the transfer often becomes the bottleneck. In testing we used an app that effectively dumped data to the network stack as fast as possible. It's going to take a few years for developers to truly understand NetIO and rewrite their apps.

I'm sure the 40x example they used was more of a niche that the XP stack doesnt do well in that they have corrected in the new IPv6 stack. If you address esotaric or a limited segment it's pretty easy to show benchmarks with big improvments.

I do agree though; in general there is still some room for improvment under a lot of OSes IP implimentations.