Evening Reading

November 27, 2007 6:00 PM

1159

So hopefullly this week will be a good week! We think so!

Verizon opening up their network
Virtual Antarctica
Feds back off Amazon records
Google going in to online storage
Return of Futurama

Lastly, politics pooping all over the $100 laptop

Steve Gibson is the cofounder of Shacknews.com. Originally known as sCary's Quakeholio back in 1996, Steve is now President of Gearbox Publishing after selling Shacknews to GameFly in 2009.

Filed Under

Wack News

From The Chatty

Refresh Go To Thread

ThomW

 reply
November 27, 2007 6:02 PM

Windows XP Speed Boost Coming with SP3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071126/tc_nf/56872

Of course I won't believe it until I see it, but this is just what Vista needs - XP to get some good press. lol
- Pneum0
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 6:05 PM
  
  Not like it matters. Xp wont be supported after sp3.
  - oatmela
    
     reply
    November 27, 2007 6:10 PM
    
    *cough*
    
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=214
    - Pneum0
      
       reply
      November 27, 2007 6:21 PM
      
      Oh snap, that rocks!
- [deleted] 877988455
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 6:06 PM
  
  [deleted]
  - Modica Sol Solis
    
     reply
    November 27, 2007 6:19 PM
    
    except there are good games for vista
  - SilverSnake
    
     reply
    November 28, 2007 1:07 AM
    
    except Vista can play games that you used to play on XP
- yAak
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 6:06 PM
  
  bah, office suite crap. maybe Vista SP1 will deliver some gaming gains? or is it primarily a driver issue?
- [deleted] 1258815869
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 6:06 PM
  
  [deleted]
- MR 9000
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 6:12 PM
  
  All I can say is, "It's about damn time" for SP3. I just did a format/reinstall over the weekend and there's 86 critical updates now after applying SP2.
  - oatmela
    
     reply
    November 27, 2007 6:13 PM
    
    slipstream your shit
- MrGrindy
  
   reply
  November 27, 2007 11:50 PM
  
  As a gamer with a DX10 card, I would rather see they optimize and fix Vista first. :(
  - Cygnus X-1
    
     reply
    November 28, 2007 12:12 AM
    
    Why? DX 10 offers no significant benefit and most likely will not for a while.
    Vista is slower. XP is faster.
    Put ALL marketing hype aside and its kind of obvious. XP is the choice for gamers who want the most performance from their rig.
    - moshman
      
       reply
      November 28, 2007 12:32 AM
      
      no, DX10 offers clear benefits, but they won't be utilised for a while
      - Phreakin
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 12:39 AM
        
        So then it offers no clear benefits
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 12:48 AM
        
        no, it offers clear benefits.
        
        Phreakin
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 12:57 AM
        
        in 2 to 3 years? It's main drawback is going to be Vista. Regardless of the select people here on the shack, Vista sucks right now and most people could care less about upgrading. As for my opinion, if a game publisher, creator, etc want to put out a game that works as DX10 and Vista only then they are never going to get me to purchase it. And I think developers right now are understanding that other then OEM sales, Vista may be in line with Windows ME.
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 1:52 AM
        
        Vista doesn't suck anymore, there is barely a difference in performance unlike when Vista came out. OK, it is still a little slower. But again, DX10 has nothing to do with that and as an API it has some awesome features AND finally hardware is forced to support all features
        
        Phreakin
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 2:13 AM
        
        "there is barely a difference in performance"
        
        Compared to what? It's NOTICEABLY slower then XP and everyone that I've seen that has Vista on here talks about installing performance packs and hopes they make it faster with a service pack.
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 2:15 AM
        
        NOTICEABLY slower doing what? There are plenty of sites that have done comparison benchmarks lately, there is a maximum of 5% difference and in most cases it's like 1-2% .
        
        jcupitt
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 3:17 AM
        
        There was that thing where you get 5x slower network performance if you are playing music. Aren't local files copies often very slow as well? Something to do with some brokenness in explorer, I forget.
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 3:30 AM
        
        yeah? that's fucked up, hadn't heard about those problems.
        
        jcupitt
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 3:35 AM
        
        one of the discussions on this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=709 ... it's not just music: any audio or video kills the network
        
        dunno if vista sp1 fixes this, I think MS said they were considering various fixes
        
        slow local file copies are supposed to be a problem with explorer interacting with UAC ... every file it copies gets bounced through some kind of expensive permissions check, or something like that
        
        try copying a big tree of files (10,000 files or more) and time vista vs. xp (xp is dog slow at this as well though)
        
        (erm, this is from memory, hope I have it right)
        
        arizona bay
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 3:33 AM
        
        It doesn't matter what 'plenty of sites' say, the fact that tons of people either tried Vista, or in my case had it pre-installed on their computer and switched back to XP, should be proof enough. I was fed up with how slow Vista was after one day, and after two days when I realized it offered me no benefits over XP at all, I was glad to switch back. I don't plan on 'upgrading' for another couple of years when I buy my next computer.
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 4:36 AM
        
        the only reason I have it on dual boot (and I haven't noticed anything slow about it, and nothing NOTICEABLY slower than in XP) is that I do graphics development and wanted to try DX10.
        
        I think Phreakin hasn't even tried it and is just going off on one
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 4:37 AM
        
        then again, I do have a beefy computer with lots of ram
        
        arizona bay
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 4:40 AM
        
        that would be why. i have a pretty nice dual 2 core extreme (i think that's what it's called? i dont really know anything about computers) laptop that does fine with IM, word processing, spread sheets, surfing the internet, listening to mp3s, and the occasional light photoshop usage. but no expensive video card and 1gb of ram...
        
        vista runs like ass on my computer
        
        Arsenal
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 5:02 AM
        
        yeah anything short of 2gb is noticeably different in vista
        
        moshman
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 5:08 AM
        
        i had to boot vista once with 512mb and it hurt, but then again, it hurts with XP too
        
        Phreakin
        
         reply
        November 28, 2007 6:50 AM
        
        I've tried it twice and removed it within 2 days both times. Not going off on anything other then poor performance. And I have a fairly good box that it ran on as well.
- [deleted] 1487304029
  
   reply
  November 28, 2007 12:54 AM
  
  [deleted]
  - Phreakin
    
     reply
    November 28, 2007 1:02 AM
    
    Supposedly not for 1 to 2 months from everything I read.
- sharkII
  
   reply
  November 28, 2007 5:42 AM
  
  I'm pretty tired of this Devil Mountain company getting thier stats spread around.