Vista Native vs Windows 7 in Virtualbox

Just out of curiosity I ran Windows assessment of Windows 7 running in virtualbox (with VT-x enabled) and Vista. Here is a screen shot of the comparison.

Vista Native vs 7 on Virtualbox 

What was amazing is the Hard disk Score, Virtualbox HDD is faster than the native disk !! Processor score is not too shabby, but I expected more with VT-x turned on. So how much does VT-x have influence on the Virtualbox performance? I tried to do the same score with VT-x turned “OFF”.

To my surprise, I got the same score! Perhaps, the windows assessment tool does not run any ring-0 code ( as far as I know, VT-x helps better management of ring-0 code).

Anyhow I’m posting the screen shot of the windows 7 on virtualbox with VT-x turned off.

Seven_virtualbox_without vt-x

If Anybody has a better idea as to why VT-x failed to change the scores in windows 7 assessment, please feel free to comment :)

Vista BSOD!

Never thought I will have to see the Blue Screen of Dread…err death on my vista. But thats exactly what I got today morning.. :(

Untimley Death of Vista x(

Untimley Death of Vista x(

The Mojave Experiment

As I was skimming thru my daily dose of updates, I found this interesting article by daily tech.
So , what is Mojave Experiment about ?
Well, we all know how much of dirt is being thrown at vista by people. There are a lot of people who hate vista and a lot of negativity around it.
While I’am not claiming that it is not unfounded. A lot of it stems from ignorance. So guys at microsoft came up with this lil experiment to show you just that.
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

In fact, I have been Mojave’ed at one point. I too was under the opinion that vista sucked ( because the experts on the net thought so.. ). But when I saw vista first hand on my buddie’s laptop, I actually found it to be good.
So when I got my Vaio, with vista, I did not downgrade to XP.
So let me dispell some myths.

* UAC is NOT a useless feature, sure it annoys power users (like me). But I can see someone like my dad or sis benefit from it. Look, one of the stupidest ways a system can get infected it by u deliberately clicking on an executable. When u see a UAC confirmation for something like a joke program, YOU KNOW that something is not right…. Besides how do you call yourself a “Power User” if u cant figure out something trivial as turning UAC off ? :P

* While VISTA does need more RAM, I found its usage to be much more efficient than XP. I really liked superfetch feature. Thanks to that, Firefox starts up in under 5 seconds, and Windows media player and winamp in under 3 seconds. So Vista is actually faster from the end user perspective.
Yeah, I/O is a lil slower than XP. But end user experience is miles ahead!

* One feature, that nobody really talked (dont know why!) is the fact that Vista has I/O prioritization! So? you might ask…. Well, you know what happens when Virus scanner starts when you were doing something heavy on XP, right? Well, that doesnt happen in Vista. Stuff like virus scan and indexing happens at lower I/O priority. So your applications dont have to fight for the Disk I/O’s (Means, overall responsiveness of the application increases).

* One more really neat feature, Thread Priority boosting. Simply put, if you are running windows media player and some “heavy” application, in order for you to have an uninterrupted media playback, Media player will boost its thread priority. Does it work ? Yes, as far as I know because, I never got any stuttering issues if Im doing some installation or virus scan in while watching movies.

And for all the people cribbing about higher RAM requirements, why dont you take a look at RAM cost these days? As we progress, the hardware requirements of the OS will go up, remember 98 used to be happy with 64 or 128 MB, try running XP on that… ;)

No Active Desktop in Vista!

Ok, how many of you remember this lil feature that was introduced in Windows 98 ? It was a nice idea, Just set any HTML page you fancy as your wallpaper. It was called active desktop.

The trouble was, with paltry amount of RAM and limited CPU horse power, Active desktop used to murder the system resources. It was carried over to XP. But still hardware had not kept pace with Software. Now with Vista and its God like requirements, I assumed that the feature was still around. To my disappointment they have removed this feature… :(

I have a nice laptop with 2.1 Ghz Penrynn processor and good 2 Gigs of RAM (additional 512MB as readyboost cache), When I have enough processing grunt and room in memory to accommodate this feature, they have removed it….

I was planning on putting http://www.twittervision.com as my wallpaper. Too bad, now I cant… :(

The reason why they did this? Ppl on the net seems to think that its coz of the security threat and memory leak issues. Hmmmm…. Too bad, when we FINALLY have the computing power to have this on the desk, they had to kill it off…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.