Brian Mayo 
Along the shoreline of New England
Member since
6/22/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 317
 |
| 4/11/2008 05:12 PM |
|
Looking to get some "zip" back in a rather recent Vista deployment...they were HP ultra small form factor boxes...Core 2 Duos, 2 gigs of RAM, NOD32 antivirus..version 3 though...I may revert back to 2.7.
I've had most people flip to the classic theme.
Gigabit network..HP Procurve switch.
Server is a Proliant ML350 G5, quad core Xeon, 4 gigs of RAM, RAID 1 OS, RAID 5 data...15k SAS drives, 15x node network.
Service Pack 1 for Vista installed on 2x of the workstations....didn't seem to do much....as most writeups are confirming....contrary to what the claims are for Vista SP1.
Just..the sluggishness...users complaining about watching the hourglass spin when doing things....
Yeah..I should have stuck with XP Pro..but had to make the leap at some point I guess..and I was believing the SP1 promises of snappier performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariette Knap 
The Netherlands
Member since
3/24/2005
Forum Admins
Posts: 12959
|
| 4/11/2008 08:05 PM |
|
Brian,
I am very happy with the performance of Vista + SP1. I run it on my desktop and laptop now without any issues at all. |
|
| Mariëtte Knap Smallbizserver.Net Administrator | Mission accomplished. We have joined the branch office to our SBS 2003 Headquarters and have the same user experience on the branch office as we have on our local network at the Headquarters. Want to know how? Signup up for a subscription and get instant access to the article series 'How to add an additional Domain Controller from a remote office to the SBS domain' |
|
|
|
|
Ron King
Canada
Member since
3/23/2006
Registered Users
Posts: 4
|
| 4/14/2008 08:30 PM |
|
Have been using Vista Bus with SBS2003 for ~ a year and am enjoying using Vista. ( you do need hardware 'Horse Power' to realize the performance benefits)
Yes, IP6 is disabled on all NICS
This may not be the right place for the following, if so, please move accordingly...
Ran into a suspected bug re SMB signing and Vista Bus SP1 update. Suspect Vista SP1 install is changing SMB signing settings on the Vista Client which resulted in loss of Network browsing functionality, loss of ability to access and run Exe's over the network shares and very slow network performance. This was supported by uninstallling SP1 update and the network issues stopped. Reinstall and issues where back.
A solution was found via the MS CTS Platforms Networking Team support verfiying the protocols and results.
For those of you who suspect a simliar situation has occured on your SBS2003 SP2 / Vista Bus SP1 installation, there are registry settings to check and that may help resolve the issue until MS issues an update
You can contact MS Vista SP1 support via the MS Vista suppor website or phone... its free for awhile.
The result of the registry modifications where;
1) Network browsing works
2) Network exe's can be executed,
3) User authorization errors where corrected
4) Network performance (Vista Client) increased 10 fold.
Remember to correlate the registry settings with your Companies Security regs and the Server's GPO SMB settings.
Overall, I am quite pleased with Vista SP1 & Office 2007 performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariette Knap
The Netherlands
Member since
3/24/2005
Forum Admins
Posts: 12959
|
|
Ron King
Canada
Member since
3/23/2006
Registered Users
Posts: 4
|
| 4/14/2008 10:20 PM |
|
| Yes, a case is open with MS. Please see message...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juan Manuel Martín Castillo
Spain
Member since
7/29/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 1
|
| 4/18/2008 10:31 AM |
|
| Hello. I´m new. Where can I find this mentioned message? I´ve got two Vista+SP1 x64 over SBS 2003 Standard domain and lost Tablet PC functions (two wacom design tablets). It seems can´t execute correctly inkWatson or wisptis.exe. I think it´s the same case you are talking about on this post. Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Mayo
Along the shoreline of New England
Member since
6/22/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 317
|
| 4/28/2008 09:15 PM |
|
I'm interested in more details of these registry checks....from Ron King.
People who are satisfied with Vista performance...what are you running for horsepower on your workstations?
As we get a feel for the "sweet spot" as far as memory goes for the average office worker...sure I'm inclined to say "Get 4 gigs"....(Hey I run 3 gigs on my XPp machine at home, 2 in my laptop but I'm usually using PCLinuxOS on that) but for the "average" office worker that running say 1x line of biz application and basic office apps...not the power user or heavy duty accountant or CAD designer...are people finding 1 gig or 2 gigs sufficient?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kieran Mann
United Kingdom
Member since
1/15/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 95
|
| 8/31/2008 07:20 PM |
|
...Well I have a customer who has a Compaq machine at home with a 1.60Ghz Intel Pentium Dual Core with 1GB of RAM. The system is "okay" when running basic tasks but when opening reports with 250 pages + it just collapses. I put in a further 512MB (didn't realise that it was 2x 512MB - bloody thing) and performance has only improved marginally. We're going to discontinue use of the machine and move over to his MacBook Pro (2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM) machine which features Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 and chuck Windows Vista Business on there using BootCamp.
Hopefully it should be a bit faster and able to handle heavy-duty documents.
I think you need AT LEAST a Intel Core 2 Duo processor running at around 1.83Ghz and AT LEAST 2GB RAM. Ideally 4GB if working with lots of applications open, large documents etc. Vista has managed to send hardware requirements through the roof although I do maintain that it overall a good upgrade from XP. Microsoft really seems to stuggle to bleed everything they can from low specifications. Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is definetly faster than Vista. Microsoft - pull your finger out and get optimising your OS.[b] [/b]
I've got to the stage where I can't be arsed "maintaining" my computer - I just want it to work day-in-day-out. I'm going to be moving over to Mac in the next month or so. Don't get me wrong things have improved in Vista - the OS doesn't mess up as much as it did in XP and I get much less support calls from people using Vista over XP. Things do still go wrong though - just the other day IE Protected Mode screwed up and started utilising 50% CPU usage - only way to fix it was to turn the darn thing off!
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 645
|
| 8/31/2008 09:38 PM |
|
| vista really requires no less than 2 gigs of ram for anything other than the os itself. Even with all the tweaks i have found vista still sucks on the same hardware as XP. The biggest thing is the intense DRM infection as well as Aero. Both of these are huge performance drains. One thing you can do is turn off aero and then put vista into classic mode(aka use the windows classic theme) and then in the advanced system area use the adjust for best system performance. After that you need to disable ipv6 si you do not use it as well as all the indexing features. AFter that see if things improve at all. Also check blackviper.com for some good tuning tips. |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Kieran Mann
United Kingdom
Member since
1/15/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 95
|
| 8/31/2008 10:41 PM |
|
I've found Vista to run very well on 2.0Ghz + Dual Core, 3GB+ systems - actually feels faster than XP. I think thats when SuperFetch really come's into its own and does some good. As you say disabling Aero and indexing helps but they are two of the major features in Vista - i.e. may as well stick with XP. The next release of Windows needs to "lean-up" and really make performance the forefront which apparently is what they are trying to do.
I've also noticed a trend of people moving over to Mac's when they were previously Windows addicts. I think people just can't be bothered (like myself) to maintain a system that at times is just a nusience. Heck, OS X is not perfect but its better than Windows for everything expect compatibility (security, performance). I was running a MacBook Pro with a 2.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo and 512MB RAM and it was acceptably fast for the majority of tasks. Microsoft is going to have to do something major to keep their consumers in the future.
Kieran. |
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 645
|
| 9/01/2008 02:40 AM |
|
| when you throw that kind of hardware at it of course it's going to be fast. Aero isn't a feature..it's uneeded eye candy in a business environment that's not implemented that well. The indexing doesn't have to run for hte system searches to operate. Superfetch has been present since xp v1..it's nothing new. Put XP on that mahcine and watch the performance jump by no less than 30%.
|
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Kieran Mann
United Kingdom
Member since
1/15/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 95
|
| 9/01/2008 12:48 PM |
|
What's the point of putting XP on a new machine - that OS is at least six years old, half the people I know don't have a car for that long. I appeciate that XP is faster but that is because it has less features than Vista and when working with higher levels of hardware i'm sure Vista is just as fast. And tell me someone who uses OS 9 instead of OS X on a new Mac. Same difference. Aero is a feature and one of the big highlights in Vista - it makes the computer much nicer to use - you sure you don't want to go back to DOS and the age of no GUI?
Your getting confused with Prefetch which was integrated into XP. SuperFetch is what is present in Vista. |
|
|
|
|
|
william warren
United States
Member since
12/8/2005
Registered Users
Posts: 645
|
| 9/04/2008 04:18 AM |
|
| superfetch is simply an extension of prefetch nothing more. XP maybe 6 years old but vista offers very little for modern businesses unless you go ultimate. Aero is eye candy..it's not a necessity. Why would i install vista on new hardware when i know i can get 25% or more performance with xp? |
|
Registered Microsoft Partner |
|
|
|
Miles Gaynor
United Kingdom
Member since
9/9/2008
Registered Users
Posts: 12
|
| 9/09/2008 04:10 PM |
|
Yesterday I had a desktop machine fail. It was a 4 year old 3ghz P4 with hyperthreading from the good old Space Heater era. 1Gb RAM. XP Pro SP3. I swapped it with one of the new machines that I'm putting on the network this year. 2gb RAM (1333mhz) dual core 2.3Ghz and SATA HD running Vista Business and exactly the same apps as before. User was very pleased with her new computer. "I love the desktop, just like the one I use at home".
I asked her if it was any quicker.
"no, no quicker - but its nice to use"
I think that says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kieran Mann
United Kingdom
Member since
1/15/2007
Registered Users
Posts: 95
|
| 9/11/2008 09:06 PM |
|
It is true that some people prefer Vista for its looks - but what is wrong with that. Someone who uses a computer for eight hours a day should be allow to have some "eye-candy" to see them through - I know I find it a welcome touch!
I have to say Vista is most definitely more reliable than XP and I have yet to find someone who disputes that. I have had far less problems with Vista than XP (less blue-screens, general OS slowdowns, security and don't forget it integrates S.M.A.R.T. HDD failure detection). I have yet to recommend "downgrading" to XP to a customer - unless software fails to run and cannot be updated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Miles Gaynor
United Kingdom
Member since
9/9/2008
Registered Users
Posts: 12
|
| 9/17/2008 01:43 PM |
|
| Kieran, I think you're right. |
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Campbell
United Kingdom
Member since
1/16/2006
Registered Users
Posts: 88
|
| 9/24/2008 12:20 AM |
|
Sorry - Vista for me makes me cry. The network browser that can only find half the servers on the lan, the fact that I started up the other day and all my PPTP connections had turned to L2TP all by themselves. The fact I still cannot get a reliable IPSEC client. The fact that it needs more resources to start up the operating system than I have used in the past to create high end 3D animations. The way that doing a familiar task is now unfamiliar and now takes longer. Hark back to Windows 2000 days (not very long ago) - if I had a laptop with a dual core Intel CPU @2.1Ghz and 4GB of RAM, 128Mb of dedicated to the graphics card and 320Gb of hard disk space I would have thought I could fly to the moon with that rig  . If we could run our .NET apps on Windows 2000 that would be interesting.
With a resource hog of an OS, 32 bit days are becoming grey and soon more resources will be required for the enevitable 64bit. I have not started to get into Windows 2008 yet and it will be interesting to see the difference running DRM free. My test server is prep'd and ready to get wet - lets hope that Windows 2008 SBS will be something I can happily endorse.
|
|
|
|
|
|