cmdshft Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Upgrade your hardware you poor sap. Also, it's all about hardware 3D now. 2D is dying out, didn't you realize this or are you just too busy trying to flame people who disagree with you and show any support for MS? Btw, I don't have 7 installed. So don't even bother trying to harass me about it, I wont listen because you're a gigantic biased and egotistical noob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 You both should read the thread before writing nonsenses. 99% of Windows apps nowadays (including the ones bundled with 7) are GDI based. The speed results haven been confirmed by several people with computers ranging from q6600 to core i7 920, and including VGA's as different as 8600gt, 9800gt, x1950pro, x3650, and some others. Btw, I don't have 7 installed. So don't even bother trying to harass me about it, I wont listen because you're a gigantic biased and egotistical noob. Lol after all theres more to a os then GDI or are u blinded by the fact that this small irreverent GDI problem have your eyes distorted for the real view of windows seven? I wouldn't call small problem, to the fact due to the lack of hardware gdi 99% of nowadays applications will draw its gui 5 times slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 right now it mite be 99% but just like when vista first came out and changed a a lot of this so will dose windows seven.. the fact that DirectWrite is being pushed out the door means 2-3 years from now most if not all apps will be programed with DirectWrite instead of GDI as Hara Taiki said "Also, it's all about hardware 3D now. 2D is dying out, didn't you realize this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 right now it mite be 99% but just like when vista first came out and changed a a lot of this so will dose windows seven.. the fact that DirectWrite is being pushed out the door means 2-3 years from now most if not all apps will be programed with DirectWrite instead of GDI as Hara Taiki said "Also, it's all about hardware 3D now. 2D is dying out, didn't you realize this" May be new applications will be ported to direct2d (though I seriouslly doubt Adobe CS5 is going to be direct2d and the same goes to several huge proffesional apps)...the problem is, there are thousands of apps that will remain GDI based...and that Windows 7 gui is actually GDI based (minus the compositing which is based on the 3d hardware), so we won't see windows performing as fast as it does in XP until they port all the system gui and applications to direct2d or WPF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curlyboy Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 What display drivers are you using VooD ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 What display drivers are you using VooD ? The results were the same with both nVidia Windows 7 WHQL drivers and Windows 7 own drivers. (in fact they were a little worse with nVidia drivers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonfilio Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Windows 7 stopped saving window positions. Epic fail MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 thats my points.. windows seven is continuing what windows vista started ..transaction from old way to new way....MS knows it can;t be done over night so why should u expect it to be done over night.. before ya know it the entire Desktop and UI will be all render Visa GPU and stored on the GPU Memory after all to change something u brake something.. Like OSX Classic to OSX 10.X.X the only difference is MS ist doing it all at once like Mac did.. Witch is a downer. MS sohuld have done what Apple did ..do it all at once take the bigest blow and then move on... instead of draging it out one part at a time well holding on to the past with the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 before ya know it the entire Desktop and UI will be all render Visa GPU and stored on the GPU Memory That probably is not going to happen until Windows 8 is released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Thing is with 7 though, is even right now 7 is on par and mix and match with performance compared to Vista. But, Vista has also had 2 service packs already, and tons of updates. 7 has no real updates right now, and still has a lot more head room to be optimized compared to Vista. That's where the beauty lies in 7. It won't be a massive performer over Vista right now, but with future updates, optimizations, and drivers built for 7, it will easily take over Vista, and be what Vista should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nano2k Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Oh my god this bug is so nasty I'm going to drop Windows 7, I can't believe performance is so bad when I'm running such an important task as resizing the services.msc window or scrolling through a folder with 1 million files so fast that the content is completely unreadable anyway... Bad MS, bad MS... Apple OSX goood gooood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Obviously you didn't understand these were just examples of the overrall slowness of Windows 7's gui in comparsion to XP due to the lack of hardware gdi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.SubZero Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Windows 7 stopped saving window positions. Epic fail MS. This causes me considerably more rage than a sub-optimal graphics system. It really did mess up my whole pattern, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to get many simple tasks done anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Mills Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Just booted 7 and tried to scroll c:\windows\system32 on my MB (early '09 white with nVidia 9400m), result 20% cpu usage and smooth scrolling. Did the same with my OH's identical MB and result 17% cpu usage and smooth scrolling. I fail to see an issue here! Now to return my OH's MB before she kills me and reboot back into OS X EDIT: Just to clarify, My MB was running 7 via Boot Camp, and the other MB was running XP via Boot Camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCH Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 You would see whats the issue if you are working in a pro audio project; Many audio tracks, plugins in all slots, maybe a couple of virtual instruments, so you are using most of your CPU power. In this scenario, If you try to scroll through your mixer, move or resize a window, you will get a cpu usage peak that will cause audio crackles, the song stop playing, etc. Thats a pain in the ass and it cannot happen in a professional enviroment. None of the audio producers/musicians I know (and I know quite a few) are working with Vista/7; the choices for a DAW are still XP or OSX. For people who wants to check their emails and do some gaming vista/7 does it fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 You would see whats the issue if you are working in a pro audio project; Many audio tracks, plugins in all slots, maybe a couple of virtual instruments, so you are using most of your CPU power. In this scenario, If you try to scroll through your mixer, move or resize a window, you will get a cpu usage peak that will cause audio crackles, the song stop playing, etc. Thats a pain in the ass and it cannot happen in a professional enviroment. None of the audio producers/musicians I know (and I know quite a few) are working with Vista/7; the choices for a DAW are still XP or OSX. For people who wants to check their emails and do some gaming vista/7 does it fine Finally someone who knows what he talks about in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Vista or 7 doesn't have anything new that audio developers would need anyways. XP is perfect for a pc(Not a mac, or osx86 box) for audio and video creation for a couple of reasons. 1.Very lightweight usage compared to Vista or 7. 2.Not as bloated as Vista or 7. 3.Uses very little resources compared to Vista or 7. There is something I would like to ask audio pros, How is Ubuntu Studio and their opensource programs for audio and visual compared to the real pro programs on windows or Mac? Looking more and more into it, and think I want to give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooD Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Vista or 7 doesn't have anything new that audio developers would need anyways. XP is perfect for a pc(Not a mac, or osx86 box) for audio and video creation for a couple of reasons. 1.Very lightweight usage compared to Vista or 7. 2.Not as bloated as Vista or 7. 3.Uses very little resources compared to Vista or 7. There is something I would like to ask audio pros, How is Ubuntu Studio and their opensource programs for audio and visual compared to the real pro programs on windows or Mac? Looking more and more into it, and think I want to give it a try. EXACTLY For writing emails, and playing games, most people will never see the difference, but people like us, used to proffesional realtime applications really see the advantages of XP over Vista/7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The only real thing I would see Vista or 7 would have an advantage over XP, is 64-bit. 64-bit XP is pretty bad, and if you would want 4gb of ram or more, Vista or 7 would be your only option. The only problem with this is though, is you would have to have a way stronger and faster machine to compensate. Something that you would probably not max out the resources in years, like a dual quad core xeon/i7 setup. Or, the 6 core Opteron system. Which compared to a home computer on budget you can build for pro tools, something like an e7200 or Athlon 2 250 system would handle just fine under the XP environment. My thing is though, if I'm gonna spend around $2000 or more, I'll just pass on a PC, and get the Mac pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verdant Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The only real thing I would see Vista or 7 would have an advantage over XP, is 64-bit. 64-bit XP is pretty bad, and if you would want 4gb of ram or more, Vista or 7 would be your only option. The only problem with this is though, is you would have to have a way stronger and faster machine to compensate. Something that you would probably not max out the resources in years, like a dual quad core xeon/i7 setup. Or, the 6 core Opteron system. Which compared to a home computer on budget you can build for pro tools, something like an e7200 or Athlon 2 250 system would handle just fine under the XP environment. My thing is though, if I'm gonna spend around $2000 or more, I'll just pass on a PC, and get the Mac pro. I second that......I was forced to get Vista because of having 4GB RAM (and later 6GB).....fortunately I have a Q6600 CPU but I still will not be upgrading to Windows 7.......if I need Windows I use XP Pro 32bit in VirtualBox under OS X on the same PC......and use OS X for my audio editing etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I second that......I was forced to get Vista because of having 4GB RAM (and later 6GB).....fortunately I have a Q6600 CPU but I still will not be upgrading to Windows 7.......if I need Windows I use XP Pro 32bit in VirtualBox under OS X on the same PC......and use OS X for my audio editing etc. I wasn't forced, I wanted to go to Vista. I did, and never looked back. Even more when Vista had 64-bit down in no troubles at all. I preordered 7 for $50 since it's never going to be that low in price again, so might as well take the deal when it's offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Mills Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Or, why don't you put icon view, then go to c:\windows\system32 and try to scroll up and down while you look at your cpu usage? I'll save you the effort. You'll get nearly 100% cpu usage, bad scrolling response, and the movement isn't any near of smooth. By comparison in XP you'll use about 15% cpu, and you'll get a supersmoth scrolling, the same happen in MacOS X, smooth and responsive scrolling, low cpu usage. I did this and compared it with XP on identical machines, side by side and saw little difference! Finally someone who knows what he talks about in this thread And yet your reply to someone else implies that I don't know what I talk about? I hate to say it but your test proved nothing, hence I failed to see an issue. Perhaps you should make sure the test you use is going to be consistant, before insulting people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verdant Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I wasn't forced, I wanted to go to Vista. I did, and never looked back. Even more when Vista had 64-bit down in no troubles at all. I preordered 7 for $50 since it's never going to be that low in price again, so might as well take the deal when it's offered. I am running Vista Ultimate 64bit.......in the EU the cost to move to Windows 7 Ultimate is too much and will require a clean install.....see here........not justifiable for me........especially given the small amount of work I need Vista Ultimate for..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 If you're into audio and visual, 7 is no good. It's too much to handle the gui, kernel, and then the heavy audio app with all the plugins and real time audio. It's just too much for 1 system to handle unless you've got the best of the best in terms of number of cores, frequency, cache, memory, speed of memory, the read/write of the hdd, and how well you have your os optimized. 7 is good for games, because compared to pro tools, games use hardly as much resources as pro tools do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drougnor Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The argument here is one that needs to be put into proper perspective. Professional usage and adoption ALWAYS lags behind by a number of months or years due to the issues being illustrated in this thread. With XP and functionally out performing the new kids on the block on current tech, there's no need or want to move on. With those tools being used, why bother, right? With a brand new system, core i7 with 12 or more gigs of ram, three massively powerful videocards running in SLI, XP is simply going to let most of that power sit unused, even the 64 bit flavor. So, with that, the argument goes against upgrading to the newest, beefiest hardware . . . But once the big tools that you are using are tweaked to be optimal on a new build computer with all of those resources, you are going to move over to Windows 7, and with that kind of hardware, the perceived lag will disappear completely. The point of it all is to drive people to buy the newest hardware, and it always has been. My view is that this complaint was a comparison of apples to oranges, as Windows 7 was written with a whole new generation of hardware and resources in mind. XP just can't keep up anymore. But that's my $.02. d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts