OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| Fat OS
Windows 2000 Server | 
Windows XP Pro | 
Windows Vista |
Windows 2000 Server - 4
Windows XP Pro - 15
Windows Vista - 31
I do not see a big difference between these three OS's in terms of security, usability, productivity - all three Windows OS provide user with the same way to do a job - execute programs (applications), but at very different cost. Windows OS itself consumes more and more resources and becomes a serious resource hog. Just to run new OS (especially the latest one - Vista) you're *required* to buy a new, more powerful hardware (CPU, memory, HD). And no wonder that minimum hardware requirements just to run those OS are rising. Otherwise you'd see that newer OS runs low as molasses comparing to an old one. And how could it run faster or safer with number of processes increasing so dramatically?
If development of Windows OS will continue in this direction next version of Windows OS may take around 60 of own processes just to run itself. It looks like some day new Windows OS will collapse by its own weight...
Is becoming a bloatware is an inevitable feature of proprietary OS which development is solely money driven?
Your thoughts please. Thanks.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| Hmm, I wasn't aware VMWare shipped as a core part of Windows XP and Vista?
I think overall, you don't understand what you're looking at, as its quite a bit more complex than examining Task Manager. Did Windows 2000 and Windows XP have UAC for example?
Let me ask you this: if nothing really has changed in any of these Windows versions, why are there driver and software compatibility problems when new versions are released?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| said by BillRoland  :Hmm, I wasn't aware VMWare shipped as a core part of Windows XP and Vista? Where did you find that VMWare shipped as a core part of Windows XP and Vista? Did I mentioned that? If you have read my post I said "excluding", didn't I?
said by BillRoland :I think overall, you don't understand what you're looking at, as its quite a bit more complex than examining Task Manager. Did Windows 2000 and Windows XP have UAC for example? FYI, in Win 2000/WXP there is such thing as user rights management. You may run computer as user with reduced privileges.
said by BillRoland :Let me ask you this: if nothing really has changed in any of these Windows versions, why are there driver and software compatibility problems when new versions are released? It has nothing to do to number of processes of "fatness" of OS.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, though 
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
Irish Shark
Play Like A Champion Today
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-29
Las Vegas, NV
| reply to OZO
Let's keep it on an even playing field.
Check the boxes in the first two to show processes from all users like it is in Vista.
Also the first picture shows 32 processes.
--
"You can observe a lot by watching". Yogi Berra |
|
Defcon888
Premium
join:2003-07-22
San Bruno, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to OZO
I have... 49 USER processes, and 52 total processes on Vista  Currently using 61% of 1024MB RAM  
Haven't tweaked anything so far. Only programs I have running for myself is Firefox, iTunes, AVG, AIM, and thats about it.
--
defcon888@gmail.com
send me spam! |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to Irish Shark
Windows XP Pro (all users) |
Here is new picture that I've made for Windows XP with making sure that "Show processes from all users" is checked. It shows the same number of processes as 1st pictute for WXP (15). I do not have access to Windows 2000 box now, but I'll do the same as soon as I'll get it.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium,MVM
join:2000-01-13
Beaverton, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to Irish Shark
said by Irish Shark :Let's keep it on an even playing field. Check the boxes in the first two to show processes from all users like it is in Vista. I agree, these results are fixed, and the fact that there is extra software running due to virtualization isn't helping these results at all.
Many of the entires in Vista have been separated, but when in XP were combined into single entries. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to Irish Shark
indeed, it does. likely because it's 2000 server
...seriously though, I didn't notice the beta (build 5600) of Vista to be any bit slower on my machine than XP.
Hardware requirements aren't all that bad, I don't think. So you need 512MB RAM... yeah, that'd be wise anyway. 1GB, which is what I had, ran Vista just fine...
And how could it run faster or safer with number of processes increasing so dramatically? --I think the biggest speed increase will come along with the "ready boost" action, which I'm actually curious to see... Let alone an entirely flash (or whatever type chip) based hard disk... The purpose of the ready boost is to use IC's for paging instead of discs, which should dramatically improve performance no matter what OS you're using... whether Vista is more "tuned" to this is unknown to me.
next version of Windows OS may take around 60 of own processes just to run itself. It looks like some day new Windows OS will collapse by its own weight...  ...and by that time, it'll say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that" meaning, we'd have bigger concerns, which some say we already do - DRM etc. |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
1 edit | reply to BlitzenZeus
1) I've posted TaskManager picture with checked box to show all users.
2) I use virtual machines just to install brand new OSs for the purposes of getting result from TaskManager. It's a new OS that is not somehow tweaked. I do not have spare HW resoutces at this time to make test installation of new OS just for the purpose of this discussion.
Anybody, if you have a new, just installed and not tweaked OS please feel free to put here a picture of TaskManager within that OS. Especially if you have just installed Windows 2000.
Using Windows 2000 will be better for fair comparison then Windows 2000 Server (server is a bit different animal here ). |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to OZO
First picture shows 32 processes from 2000
Second shows 19 on XP Pro
Vista shows 35
Thanks for the pictures but I think you should check the box to show processes from all users before you show us this.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
mikepd
Discovery
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to OZO
Vista's code base is built on Windows Server 2003 and has nothing to do with XP Pro so you might want to consider that as long as you want to claim to be 'fair'.
Feel free to do a Google search on the subject and check it out. People are making this assumption that Vista is an extension of XP and that is just not the case.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp |
|
Xzar
join:2003-02-16
Yaphank, NY
| reply to MysticGogeta
I agree make it fair, but it seems from the pics that Vista is in fact a lighter OS then XP, using about 20,000K less memory (based on the pics). Anyone else want to test this theory?
Removed only VM related memory usage from the pics:
XP memory total: 70772
Vista memory total: 51512
Being that vista was made with multi-core cpus in mind, it seems Microsoft broke things into there own processes to speed things up using Threading. |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to OZO
Windows 2000 Pro | 
Windows XP Pro | 
Windows Vista Business |
These pictures show TaskManager window in three latest Windows OS: Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Business.
If you exclude TaskManager (used to show processes) and 3 VmWare components (in last two cases) number of processes that run OS respectively are:
Windows 2000 Pro - 14
Windows XP Pro - 15
Windows Vista - 31
Kernel memory (approximately, at the time I made the shots):
Windows 2000 Pro - 15 MB
Windows XP Pro - 13 MB
Windows Vista - 42 MB
Vista looks like a resource hog to me requiring more then twise of processes to run itself and asking for more then double amount of memory just for kernel.
Make comparison of totlal memory consumption of Vista on a new installed OS and post your calculations here. It'd be interesting to see. I presume that based on new published requirements to run Vista OS it's a big memory hog as well. I was not talking yet about HD space required for installation new Vista OS...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
nuclei2v5x
join:2003-07-07
Leesburg, GA
| reply to OZO
Dude lets bring back windows 95, what was wrong with it? I remember I could end every process except explorer.exe!
Nah but on a serious note, I'm not about to spend money on a new computer just so i can run vista and be able to see coooool thumbnails when rolling over minimized programs.
You know what windows will be in the future right? Vista is already an example of it. In the future, windows will have every icon spinning with reflections and casting shadows onto your desktop, complex lighting algorithms with be used to properly illustrate the refraction of light on the icons, coming from a animated sun sitting in the upper right hand corner of your screen. Windows will need 4 gigabytes of ram to load and require a state of the art graphics card, and a whole hard drive just to run. And will any of this help you to send an email, or write a word document? NO. Wheres the real innovation.
It's obvious whats going on. If OS's don't get bloated up, then no body is going to by new compturs! I'm not giving into it. My windows xp in fine and im not spending money to do the exact same shit I do with Windows XP. If I want fancyness, I will install windowsblinds, thanks.
This is a very good article. You beat me to it. |
|
howie
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-08
Little Falls, NJ
2 edits | reply to OZO
I don't really see the point of comparing XP and W2K, which are now 5-6 years old to Vista. When these earlier OS's were released, sub 1Ghz processors, 128-256MB RAM and sub 100GB hard drives were commonplace and these operating systems were designed to run on the PC's of that time period. Now, 2-3+Ghz processors, 1GB+ RAM and 250GB+ HDD's are the rule rather than the exception and Vista takes advantage of this. My Vista is running 61 processes at startup and using about 400MB of memory. What's the big deal? My Vista starts faster, runs smoother and is just a better computing experience than XP ever was, at least for me. I never monitor my task manager and never saw the need to... everything is working great. Vista may be "fat" but the hardware to run it has gained weight as well.
--
"The only reason that you're conscious right now is because I don't want to carry you." - Jack Bauer |
|
witmer1
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Llewellyn, PA
| I think the OP's point was to show that users on lower hardware feel the need to upgrade the hardware to get the experience you and I are getting out of Vista with a 3+ GHz system with 1+ GB RAM and 250+ GB HDD.
This is the whole issue of people feeling "cheated" that they have to upgrade their hardware to run Vista. I know of people running XP on a 400 MHz machine with 128 MB RAM. It isn't the experience you and I would accept, but for them it did the job. |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | reply to OZO
Looks like XP Pro has one more process and takes less memory then 2000! So I think we found the winner based on lowest ram usage.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
howie
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-08
Little Falls, NJ
4 edits | reply to witmer1
said by witmer1 :This is the whole issue of people feeling "cheated" that they have to upgrade their hardware to run Vista. I know of people running XP on a 400 MHz machine with 128 MB RAM. It isn't the experience you and I would accept, but for them it did the job. I don't think anyone's being cheated. I'm sure there is a good percentage of people who are are running 5 year old PC's but XP is not going anywhere soon and people with faster PC's now have the choice to still use XP or take advantage of their faster, more powerful machines by using Vista.
I just feel comparing 6 year old operating systems with much lower hardware requirements to Vista is unfair and invalid. Almost all software has changed dramatically in the requirements required to run it in 6 year's time and I assume this will always be the case as technology evolves.
I may also just be missing the point the OP is trying to make entirely, which is normal for me... 
--
"The only reason that you're conscious right now is because I don't want to carry you." - Jack Bauer |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to MysticGogeta
said by MysticGogeta :Looks like XP Pro has one more process and takes less memory then 2000! So I think we found the winner based on lowest ram usage. But what does that show? The goal of a memory manager is not 'keep as much memory as possible doing nothing' but 'share all available memory between what is running right now'.
If you can, for example, make the system run 5% faster by using twice as much memory as you're already using, then as long as that extra memory isn't needed for anything else right now, then that's a good thing to do.
--
Microsoft Security MVP, 2005-2007. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to OZO
This is like using a scale sold to you by the company that makes the diet pills you gulp down with your Whopper & fries. The premise is flawed if only for the fact that Task Manager is providing the metrics. You trust Task Manager to show you what's really running?
meh.
--
.sig currently unavailable. Try again later. |
|
