Vista - Vista SP1 performance still AWFUL!

Full backup across my network:

Started 4/10/2008 1:37:55 AM
Scanning 'C:\'
Completed 4/10/2008 1:08:27 PM
Folders Compared: 17445; Files Compared: 0; Folders Created: 17445; Files
Copied: 145057 (26576807906 bytes)

Just short of 12 hours. Dreadful...just dreadful!

I guess much of that depends on the hardware being used, but not mentioned.

This information by itself is meaningless. For all we know your network may
be a modem. I copy 5GB of digital photos across my wireless N network much
faster than the rate you claim.

"Don D" wrote:

> every time you click on something.it gives you a pop up.to make you approve.

What are you doing when you get a pop up? I can't get anyone to tell me how
they get this to happen. With the exception of Acronis Drive Director and
True Image and another program or two, I don't get any prompts. Until someone
can prove it is Calculator or some other benign program, it is just FUD.

In my personal tests SP1 can be significantly faster depending on your
hardware configuration than non SP1 but still not as fast as XP performing
the same tasks on the same machine (dual boot system).
My personal finding is that Vista does best on Intel core duo processors
presumably because of the massive on board cache. I also presume Intel has
worked harder than other vendors to optimize drivers for Vista as Intel and
Microsoft are but two heads of the same beastie.
Machines with older chipsets, for example Nforce 4 for AMD socket 939 procs,
perform much worse than newer chipsets so mobo drivers appear to be a major
issue when processor speeds are otherwise comparable.
Consumer experience leads to the conclusion that Vista was constructed with
faulty programming for all operations which involve accessing the hard drive
and SP1 has not corrected this. More than anything about Vista I find this
mind boggling.
On one of my dual boot machines, an Intel Quad core, where Vista is on the
faster hard drive, Vista performance has notably improved for operations
involving disc access but still lags behind XP performance on the older,
slower (and half the memory on the XP hard drive) hard drive. Vista problems
are immediately obvious when installing the same programs on the Vista side
of a dual boot machine--again Vista having the faster hard drive, is time by
your wris****ch slower than on the XP side.
I am trying to switch to Vista on some machines but in truth I can find no
rational reason at present for anyone to install Vista. Vista performance is
acceptable on high end machines but still lags behind XP and Vista
peripheral drivers may not exist for hardware that is even 2 years old.

Hardware: New (in Sept) Compaq Presario sr5152nx, 2 gb memory, AMD 64 Dual
core 4000+ 2.1 ghz processor, 10/100 switch & NIC. Standard stuff for
Vista.

Another post SP1 oddity: prior to SP1 the backup log file was saved in:

C:\Users\owner\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\EZBackitup\logs

Since SP1 it is saved in: C:\Program Files\EZBackitup\logs

The same backup done to an internal, second HD takes about an hour.


".Joe" <Joe.37oqw3@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Joe.37oqw3@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

Hardware: New (in Sept) Compaq Presario sr5152nx, 2 gb memory, AMD 64 Dual
core 4000+ 2.1 ghz processor, 10/100 switch & NIC. Standard stuff for
Vista.

Another post SP1 oddity: prior to SP1 the backup log file was saved in:

C:\Users\owner\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\EZBackitup\logs

Since SP1 it is saved in: C:\Program Files\EZBackitup\logs

The same backup done to an internal, second HD takes about an hour.

"PNutts" <pnutterfield@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:64224AE7-C9D0-40A8-BF37-6A12BD17A084@xxxxxx

"Don D" <notme@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23KS9qP3mIHA.1368@xxxxxx
Hello Don,

I just did a 26GB file transfer across my network as a test ... took just
slightly over 18 minutes.

I'd suggest you look elsewhere for your network throughput problem, Vista
SP1 performs flawlessly here.

This comnputer triple boots 2K, XP and Vista. I see virtually identical
network performance in all three O/Ses with a very slight edge going to 2K
.... 15 seconds in the above 26GB test.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Don D wrote:Any chance this might be a network issue? Have you tried transferring
that many files over the network using XP?

BTW, I did the calculations...

Based on 12 hours using the byte transfer amount you indicated.

24.75GB transferred @ approx 600.78KB/sec (that's Kilobytes) average.
This equals to approx 4.8Mbit/sec (Megabit). Looks like a network
bottleneck to me.

Also what is the destination machine specs???

The destination machine is an identical (new in Sept) Compaq. I even
installed 1 gb NIC's and switch. These stats were done with a 100 mb
switch. The 1 gb switch performance was no better. The identical (or
nearly so) network backup with XP takes about 2 hours. The only way I can
get 2 hours is to backup to a second hard drive in the same PC.



"Robert Pendell" <shinji257@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OFX5s1LnIHA.6064@xxxxxx