Have Nvidia drivers matured yet for Vista?

[Vir]

With the latest beta drivers I can see a small framerate decrease when I have Vista 32bit installed. At the moment I'm on XP but when I get my 8800 GT I'll be moving to Vista 32bit for sure. Maybe the framerate is a bit depending on the hardware you have aswell.

 

[R4z0r]

As I have said even MS will admit Vista is slower.

Not sure where people get this idea from, from my experience, Vista is far quicker than XP at just about everything - especially booting.

Where do MS "admit Vista is slower" - do you have a link to back that statement up?

 

[sosrandom]

vista does boot to the desktop faster then xp (both clean installs) but vista cant be used right away once desktop opens as it spends another 5 mins playing with the hd blocking/slowing access to anything youd want to run . (even with indexing, superfetch and all the other crap turned off)

Thats odd I would have said the opposite from my experience thats one of the things I like about Vista by now my XP install would be starting to slow down where I boot much quicker and once im logged in Straight away I can use my PC. (Indexing dost run on boot (i think) if it did that would slow you down a bit)

There were some problems with slow network access but there supposed to have been resolved with the hotfixes.

 

[bfar]

What you tallking about, Prefetch ?.

And your past part, what hardware is lacking or poorly configured (you mean mines), because without boosting I bet its a damn site better than yours.

Vista is slower than XP, MS know and admit it, most sites know it, what is so hard to grasp.

Compairing a clean install is FAIR, as a old XP install will be slower and messed up, any OS feels FAST as a new install.

If you go onto some hardcore sites and claim Vista is faster than XP you will get laughed at.

With 9 posts in 8 months and no Hardware Sig I think I can safely ignore your wisdom and comments about hardware lacklustness and optimisation.

Vista has 1 rather big bug in which it cant move or copy large files, this is not just for peeps doing video work but download a large file like a Game Demo and when it ends it moves from a Temp Folder to say your Desktop (if this is where you choose), well it takes forever, a 2GB Demo file takes me 5 times longer to move than download.

And before someone says its my PC, its a known issue in Vista, the SP 1 Beta Im on seems to 99% fix it though.

There is a well known bug which makes network copying and LAN/Wireless slow to a crawl. Apparently it has something to do with the way Vista prioritises media playback. I don't know the techy details, you'd need someone who knows more about this kind of thing.

Word is that it's been completely fixed in SP1.

 

[sosrandom]

Oh and ppl that say SP3 is quicker need to learn to read, in all the articals ive read there all linked to a post some idiot on an old laptop made with 1 gig or ram.
Plus all the 'benchmarks' were office related, the main area where I would say vista feels faster is browsing and interacting with your media, extracting large rar files seems to take a lot less time weather thats because of improved code/processor/4gigs of ram/64bit support IDK.

The only way Ill be using XP again is if I find an improvement in fps for crysis and maybe to see whats in SP3 (on another drive)

 

[sosrandom]

Hes on about copying large files I believe.
I kind of agree, although for me it take the same time (runs at 55Mb/s constantly moving between drive) but my PC becomes a lot slower 10Mb/s when copying, I only really effects my when I'm Copying files larger than (2Gb+) and I want to do other stuff.

XP has a similar problem tho, try moving 2 very large files at once, twill take you all year as it doesn't seem to know what to do

EDIT:
I forgot to mention, if you copy a file onto a different drive the problem goes, Its quicker to copy onto another drive then move the file back.
helmutcheese did you try this, its not something that bothered as I rarely copy a file onto the same drive but It would be interesting to know.

Sure Vista requires more demanding hardware and punishes you if you don't have it, but if you do it IMO it nicer to use

 

[HummuH1]

I can only talk from my own experience. I have just fresh installed 32bit XP-SP2 on a P4 3GHz/2BG RAM system and cleaned up drives etc at the same time.

I have Vista 32bit installed on the spec below with loads of crap installed on the HDD.

Vista boots approximately 28 seconds quicker than the XP system. Also, I can use my desktop on Vista as soon as it appears rather have to wait 3 minutes 'till all "settles" with XP.

For me, so far, Vista has been a much better experience than XP.

 

[helmutcheese]

Oh and ppl that say SP3 is quicker need to learn to read, in all the articals ive read there all linked to a post some idiot on an old laptop made with 1 gig or ram.
Plus all the 'benchmarks' were office related, the main area where I would say vista feels faster is browsing and interacting with your media, extracting large rar files seems to take a lot less time weather thats because of improved code/processor/4gigs of ram/64bit support IDK.

The only way Ill be using XP again is if I find an improvement in fps for crysis and maybe to see whats in SP3 (on another drive)

Nobody needs to learn to read but you, there is more than 1 website talking about it, I get my info from MS sites and other Beta Testers.

Its was ran on an older PC as most dont have powerfull machines, and 1GB is now the norm for Joe Public (512GB Modules now sell more than 256MB Modules news other day).

 

[helmutcheese]

Not sure where people get this idea from, from my experience, Vista is far quicker than XP at just about everything - especially booting.

Where do MS "admit Vista is slower" - do you have a link to back that statement up?

Go and read 100's of sites, Google is good you know,your kidding yourself on about Vista, its got a long way to go probably SP2 before its any match for XP, even then as I told you its 2 years late and lacking in functions they just could not get ready in time.

 

[helmutcheese]

There is a well known bug which makes network copying and LAN/Wireless slow to a crawl. Apparently it has something to do with the way Vista prioritises media playback. I don't know the techy details, you'd need someone who knows more about this kind of thing.

Word is that it's been completely fixed in SP1.

I do know some of the bugs in Vista, I did report them before it was RTM and do test the SP1 Betas and hopefully if I get invited the RC, that had nothing to do with what he was talking about and the Slow Bug moving copying files isnt either and tha above is not the same issue that sosrandom talks of and also has nothing to do with your hardware, its a bug which SP1 seems to have all but fixed.

I got enough trouble other day with this thread in a PM (hope the other guy did do) so Im out of it, but really some of you are cluessless about Vistas current state, if you want to kid on its currrently better than XP-SP2 and think you know how the OS works you should try get on the Beta Team.

I dont think many of you if any even asnwered the OP, Least I did in 1st post.

 

[Finguz]

but really some of you are cluessless about Vistas current state

Thats the most accurate comment you have made thus far except of course it's not 'some of us', it's clearly you who doesn't have a clue. Don't believe everything you read on 'hundreds of sites', believe what you can see for yourself from your system and other peoples. As most people are trying to tell you here, Vista boots faster than XP, obviously it doesn't on your system and that should give you a big clue to where the problem lies.

Don't forget that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[helmutcheese]

I know more than you anyhow, thats all I need to worry about.

Are you on the Beta Team ?, if no then you dont have a clue what the SP is fixing or not fixing.

Smart talk for someone with 9 posts in 6months (i always find that funny) and I believe what I read from other testers and myself not your findings.

Vista does not boot faster than XP period (unless your XP install is that old and broken) and there is nothing wrong with my System, the only problem is your dont know anything about XP or Vista.

And you still have not answered the OP.

 

[Robert]

Go and read 100's of sites, Google is good you know,your kidding yourself on about Vista, its got a long way to go probably SP2 before its any match for XP, even then as I told you its 2 years late and lacking in functions they just could not get ready in time.

How about you provide links?

Oh and what on earth has post count got to do with this?

As I've said above - post links to back up your statements instead of resorting to

"Oh but there's hundreds of links on the the web."

 

[sosrandom]

My point is that a lot of the 'news' (including stuff posted by people on this forum)was based of what 1 person said running XP and Vista on laptop using office Apps, those same reviews say XP SP3 is twice as fast as Vista SP1, but fail to mention at what.

Plus its common knowledge that Vista needs at least 2Gb of ram, thats the way it is and the way it will be regardless of service packs upgrade or suffer, so no more 1Gb benchmarks please, 3/4 years ago I had 2Gb of ram because it was the optimum for XP so its hardly fair to compare with 1Gb.

Lets see how much quicker XP is than Vista in other programs, Photoshop CS3/WinRAR 3.71/Avast Virus Scanner etc.

and I haven't tried the betas because I don't want to bug-test Microsoft products especially since I have no problems atm.

As for the matter of Vista coming pre-installed on laptops & Vista ready/compatible PCs MS obviously want to push vista onto people same as always.

 

[helmutcheese]

Far does, but again the benches are there and are slower for Games and Office and P.S etc.

2GB is a must IMO and many's but 4GB is the sweet spot even if you dont game, its cheap today and makes apps like Office and P.S (more ram is better) fly.

I dont hate MS, stick up for them all the time, I know Win ME was a POS, I know XP was buggy at 1st but better than Win ME and I know by SP2 MS had gave themselfs a hard job to better the best OS ever.

Any clean install feels faster, thats why I have 1 Raptor X with Vista SP1 and the other Raptor X with XP-SP3 Beta and I am supposed to fill out bug reports which I try and get round to lol.

I fill in the same crap every time but it wont be fixed and aint fixed in Vista either.

@ sosrandom, The way you discuss this is welcomed, its 1 or 2 others and their BS I dont like.

 

[DeadMan]

I haven't had a problem with Nvidia under Vista. I just have a problem with Vista.

 

[Robert]

Far does, but again the benches are there and are slower for Games and Office and P.S etc.

2GB is a must IMO, but 4GB is the sweet spot even if you don't game, its cheap today and makes apps like Office and P.S (more ram is better) fly.

I don't hate MS, stick up for them all the time, I know Win ME was a POS, I know XP was buggy at 1st but better than Win ME and I know by SP2 MS had gave themselves a hard job to better the best OS ever.

Any clean install feels faster, thats why I have 1 Raptor X with Vista SP1 and the other Raptor X with XP-SP3 Beta and I am supposed to fill out bug reports which I try and get round to lol.

I fill in the same crap every time but it wont be fixed and ain't fixed in Vista either.

@ sosrandom, The way you discuss this is welcomed, its 1 or 2 others and there BS I don't like.

Ah BS, yes.

You still haven't posted these links, which would be welcomed. I just love how something is BS when I've witnessed it on my own machine.

Ho hum.

 

[Fire Wizard]

Let's keep the replies in this thread civil please since it would be a shame if this thread was to get removed.

Moving on......

Now in my experience on my system, Windows Vista boots slightly quicker than Windows XP does. I think comparing boot times of a fresh install of Windows XP versus a fresh install of Windows Vista can only tell a tiny percentage of the story. A good Operating System maintains its integrity months after it has been installed.

Windows XP may boot quicker than Windows Vista after it has been freshly installed however, if in a couple of weeks Windows Vista is suddenly booting much quicker than Windows XP due to Windows XP degrading over time, the comparing of boot-up times with different Operating Systems when freshly installed, in my opinion pretty much goes out the window.

Since would you rather have an Operating System boot up quicker when it's very first installed or an Operating System to maintain a good, steady performance rate i.e. in this context, Boot-Up times months after it has been installed?

Regarding the benchmarks. Referring to this blog. I have searched Google and am yet to find any other websites and/or articles stating the same performance results as this other blog is.

It honestly looks to me that the person that has submitted these results seems to have some kind of problem with Windows Vista itself going by his other articles. Now I am not simply saying this because I like using Windows Vista. If websites such as Anandtech, Tweaktown and other reliable sources were also reporting the same kind of performance results then I would be very much inclined to believe that this is actually the general consensus.

Now as far as Gamming Performance goes, for me, Windows Vista is now fantastic for Gamming and I don't have any trouble with games. I personally think the general consensus is now, for most people, that Windows Vista isn't quite their yet overall however the performance is extremely close to that of Windows XP. Here is a very good article and well worth reading.

 

[Finguz]

I know more than you anyhow, thats all I need to worry about.

Yes it seems you are a self proclaimed genius

Are you on the Beta Team ?, if no then you dont have a clue what the SP is fixing or not fixing.

Yes?

Smart talk for someone with 9 posts in 6months (i always find that funny) and I believe what I read from other testers and myself not your findings.

Post count again?

Vista does not boot faster than XP period (unless your XP install is that old and broken) and there is nothing wrong with my System, the only problem is your dont know anything about XP or Vista.

Yes Vista does boot faster than XP, and I know enough to support my family comfortably enough.

And you still have not answered the OP.

Errm, I thought I said "Gaming started out fairly badly with Vista but now things have levelled out and each driver release brings welcome improvements, at least Nvidia's do, I don't own an ATI card.", in my initial reply?

 

[R4z0r]

Go and read 100's of sites, Google is good you know,your kidding yourself on about Vista, its got a long way to go probably SP2 before its any match for XP, even then as I told you its 2 years late and lacking in functions they just could not get ready in time.

LOL, you're great.

Where's the backup to your MS "admit Vista is slower" comment. That was my favourite.