Welcome guest. Before posting on our computer help forum, you must register. Click here it's easy and free.

Author Topic: Vista and Windows 7  (Read 16241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

redd

    Topic Starter


    Rookie
  • Thanked: 1
    • Experience: Experienced
    • OS: Windows Vista
    Vista and Windows 7
    « on: December 12, 2009, 12:36:24 PM »
    I have tried the great Win 7. Yes it is nice eye candy. Desktop and all. But you know it did not impress me. I was expecting it to boot faster than my Vista. Maybe a bit faster. But not enough to say wow!. I have been running Vista for about a year now and had no problems with. Maybe minor, but nothing horrific. I think Win 7 is just a tear down of vista. With a few improvements. If you have used Kubuntu (Linux). It has some influence in Windows 7. Maybe 2 little things. But any way I am happy with Vista thus far. And it runs quite fast for me. Her is what I am running Vista on:

    2.67 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
    64 kilobyte primary memory cache
    6144 kilobyte secondary memory cache
    64-bit ready
    Multi-core (4 total)
    Not hyper-threaded         Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. P5KPL-CM
    Serial Number: MS1C94BJ0U01992
    Bus Clock: 333 megahertz
    BIOS: American Megatrends Inc. 0606 03/11/2009
    Drives         Memory Modules c,d
    500.11 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
    425.43 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

    HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GH22LS30 ATA Device [CD-ROM drive]

    ST3500418AS [Hard drive] (500.11 GB) -- drive 0, s/n 9VM01P5P, rev CC34, SMART Status: Healthy         3072 Megabytes Usable Installed Memory

    Slot 'DIMM A1' has 2048 MB
    Slot 'DIMM B1' has 2048 MB

    Video card is a XFX Gforce 9800GT 512 MB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0

    Runs well  ;D. If you can afford a fast machine close to this or better. It rolls quite well. If you have an older machine dual core you will see a difference. Slow enough to make you say WOW! Let me hear from you and your experiences with different machines.

    Redd  ;)

    P.S. Windows loves RAM. More the better.

    Geek-9pm


      Mastermind
    • Geek After Dark
    • Thanked: 1026
      • Gekk9pm bnlog
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Expert
    • OS: Windows 10
    Re: Vista and Windows 7
    « Reply #1 on: December 12, 2009, 12:44:12 PM »
    Well I was not impressed with Visata.
    But I like Windows 7.  8)

    BC_Programmer


      Mastermind
    • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
    • Thanked: 1140
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • BC-Programming.com
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Beginner
    • OS: Windows 11
    Re: Vista and Windows 7
    « Reply #2 on: December 12, 2009, 12:44:40 PM »
    I was not impressed by Hitler.
    I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

    kpac

    • Web moderator


    • Hacker

    • kpac®
    • Thanked: 184
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • Yes
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Expert
    • OS: Windows 7
    Re: Vista and Windows 7
    « Reply #3 on: December 12, 2009, 12:54:54 PM »
    Quote
    I was expecting it to boot faster than my Vista. Maybe a bit faster.
    Which is how long?

    On my, quote, "Visata" laptop is would be waiting around ~70 seconds for it to completely load. Now with a completely new build it takes about 14 seconds.

    soybean



      Genius
    • The first soybean ever to learn the computer.
    • Thanked: 469
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Experienced
    • OS: Windows 10
    Re: Vista and Windows 7
    « Reply #4 on: December 12, 2009, 05:00:08 PM »
    Quote
    Her is what I am running Vista on: ...
    So, what are you running Win 7 on?  Without that info, your point seems void. That computer for which you posted specs should run any OS well. 

    Quote
    If you have used Kubuntu (Linux). It has some influence in Windows 7. Maybe 2 little things.
    Huh?

    redd

      Topic Starter


      Rookie
    • Thanked: 1
      • Experience: Experienced
      • OS: Windows Vista
      Re: Vista and Windows 7
      « Reply #5 on: December 13, 2009, 04:45:47 PM »
      I have Vista on a HP and it runs well but slow boot up. 20 to 30 seconds approx. Maybe I am just like it to boot up in seconds. And to reply to similarities Was win 7 has stick notes Never had that before. Kubuntu always had it.) and at the bottom left think its called windows explorer but shows you your documents,pictures ,videos folders. Its kinda like Kubuntu home folder thing'y. But that is my option.

      soybean



        Genius
      • The first soybean ever to learn the computer.
      • Thanked: 469
      • Computer: Specs
      • Experience: Experienced
      • OS: Windows 10
      Re: Vista and Windows 7
      « Reply #6 on: December 13, 2009, 04:48:33 PM »
      Quote
      slow boot up. 20 to 30 seconds approx.
      Hmm, you call that slow?  I believe the majority of users would say that's quite fast.
      « Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 09:19:39 AM by soybean »

      redd

        Topic Starter


        Rookie
      • Thanked: 1
        • Experience: Experienced
        • OS: Windows Vista
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #7 on: December 15, 2009, 02:29:03 PM »
        Ya maybe. I timed it with my watch and ...OK 1 min approx to load. Guess I count real slow.  ;D

        patio

        • Moderator


        • Genius
        • Maud' Dib
        • Thanked: 1769
          • Yes
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 7
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #8 on: December 15, 2009, 04:19:47 PM »
        I've never if anytime considered boot times in evaluating an OS...
        If in fact my machine is powered down and i need to boot...i hit the power switch...walk away and grab a coffee, beer or other adult beverage depending on the time of day.
        I'd never time my bootup with a stopwatch.
        " Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined. "

        Geek-9pm


          Mastermind
        • Geek After Dark
        • Thanked: 1026
          • Gekk9pm bnlog
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Windows 10
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #9 on: December 15, 2009, 06:26:13 PM »
        I've never if anytime considered boot times in evaluating an OS...
        If in fact my machine is powered down and i need to boot...i hit the power switch...walk away and grab a coffee, beer or other adult beverage depending on the time of day.
        I'd never time my bootup with a stopwatch.
        Perfect answer.

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #10 on: December 15, 2009, 07:24:27 PM »
        Also, if startup times are important, why not shut-down times? Sometimes shut-down can take way longer then startup...

        and your almost obligated to wait for it, too, because it likes to prompt you about stuff.

        "would you like to save your changes" and of course, if you don't say "yes" then the shut-down procedure will simply terminate the process.
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

        Kurtiskain



          Mentor

          Thanked: 58
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Windows 10
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #11 on: January 12, 2010, 02:08:00 AM »
        I moved to Windows 7 this week, and I am seriously considering ignoring it and going back to the ol' XP SP3.

        My first impression was "this is great!"

        Now I am thinking somewhat otherwise.

        The speed and setup of Win7 was epicly amazing, no snags, until I got to my sound card drivers.

        (I know this is not quite Windows 7's Fault, but it kind of is, also.)

        My Creative X-Fi Xtreme Audio PCI-e worked flawlessly under XP, and now in Windows 7, I hate it, no surround audio, no EAX, and Creative's drivers and control panel are at best unstable.

        I am finding the user interface (GUI) becoming more and more overwhelming and toxicly sick as I delve in deeper and deeper. XP can have some nice themes too, just get the public Window Blinds program and you can download thousands of cool looking skins for XP, and if you pay for the pro copy, Window Blinds even does the Aero Glass effect for you.

        Other than that, the ATi Drivers work like a charm, nothing wrong there.

        As an avid gamer, for me the loss of EAX and surround audio after i also paid for a high range set of Creative Speakers, simply for DX10 seems not worth it at all.

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #12 on: January 12, 2010, 02:09:47 AM »
        my X-Fi works fine in windows 7.

        Also, WindowBlinds is a huge memory and resource hog; and it doesn't come with the OS.
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

        Quantos



          Guru
        • Veni, Vidi, Vici
        • Thanked: 170
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Guru
        • OS: Linux variant
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #13 on: January 12, 2010, 04:32:16 AM »
        XP can have some nice themes too, just get the public Window Blinds program and you can download thousands of cool looking skins for XP, and if you pay for the pro copy, Window Blinds even does the Aero Glass effect for you.

        Why would you want to run a second GUI layer on top of your OS, this has been known to be a resource hog ever since Symantec's 'Norton Desktop'.  Sorry, but my computers' resources have a better use.
        Evil is an exact science.

        Kurtiskain



          Mentor

          Thanked: 58
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Windows 10
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #14 on: January 12, 2010, 04:36:02 AM »
        my X-Fi works fine in windows 7.

        Mine works fine if I am only playing music and surfing the net...Its games where it falls down. OpenAL games are fine, it is the DirectSound3D games like Fallout 3 where I get let down. What's the point of having a high range vid card, a nice PCI-e Audio card and high range 5.1 speakers if you can't use them properly?

        Are you running a 5.1 setup BC?

        Also, WindowBlinds is a huge memory and resource hog; and it doesn't come with the OS.

        Quote
        Why would you want to run a second GUI layer on top of your OS, this has been known to be a resource hog ever since Symantec's 'Norton Desktop'.  Sorry, but my computers' resources have a better use.

        My fresh windows 7 install consumed a massive 1.2GB out of 4GB (3.5GB usable) of ram just at login, with average cpu usage at 30% idle

        My fresh copy of XP with windowblinds installed and an animated theme? 400MB of the usable 3.5GB, cpu at 2% idle.

        So how is this a resource hog when placed beside Windows 7?

        Also just to quote on the startup/shutdown times....It is great!
        About the same as a fresh copy of XP with drivers installed for me, so about 20-30 seconds.

        kpac

        • Web moderator


        • Hacker

        • kpac®
        • Thanked: 184
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Windows 7
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #15 on: January 12, 2010, 04:57:56 AM »
        Quote
        My fresh windows 7 install consumed a massive 1.2GB out of 4GB
        Then get another 4 gigs. ;D

        soybean



          Genius
        • The first soybean ever to learn the computer.
        • Thanked: 469
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Experienced
        • OS: Windows 10
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #16 on: January 12, 2010, 08:26:57 AM »
        My fresh windows 7 install consumed a massive 1.2GB out of 4GB (3.5GB usable) of ram just at login, with average cpu usage at 30% idle
        Something must be out of kilter here.  I believe that's definitely not normal.  It's not what I've experienced with Windows 7.

        patio

        • Moderator


        • Genius
        • Maud' Dib
        • Thanked: 1769
          • Yes
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 7
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #17 on: January 12, 2010, 08:43:21 AM »
        Comparing Vista/Win7 vs. XP in memory usage is apples and oranges as they utilise RAM totally different...

        Have a Read...

        As a side note i've removed Window Blinds from many machines and seen immediate improvement...customers noticed as well...
        " Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined. "

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #18 on: January 12, 2010, 01:04:42 PM »
        Something must be out of kilter here.  I believe that's definitely not normal.  It's not what I've experienced with Windows 7.

        Actually, it is. It's called Superfetch.

        See, Vista/7 don't leave unused RAM... well, unused. It's no good. why have 8GB of RAM when you only use that last memory stick when you load up 15 copies of AutoCAD? Waste of money.

        So Unused memory is used to Cache data- anything else requests RAM, and if there isn't any available, Superfetch yields some of it's cache RAM.

        Quote
        Mine works fine if I am only playing music and surfing the net...Its games where it falls down. OpenAL games are fine, it is the DirectSound3D games like Fallout 3 where I get let down. What's the point of having a high range vid card, a nice PCI-e Audio card and high range 5.1 speakers if you can't use them properly?

        Are you running a 5.1 setup BC?
        2.1. Directsound works fine for me; and I did have access to a few extra sets of speakers to test out, couldn't find any problems; only had them for a day or so, though.

        games are able to detect and use EAX 5.0 just fine.

        That being said, MY X-Fi actually has a X-Fi chip (extremeGamer) ; the X-Fi extreme Audio does not, it's purely software emulation. This might also explain why you have higher processor usage. (in fact, what you have is no better hardware-wise then an Audigy SE, which also didn't have the audigy chip) I believe MS made a few changes starting with vista with regards to host-based processing within drivers; which might explain the higher CPU consumption.

        Quote
        My fresh windows 7 install consumed a massive 1.2GB out of 4GB (3.5GB usable) of ram just at login, with average cpu usage at 30% idle

        My fresh copy of XP with windowblinds installed and an animated theme? 400MB of the usable 3.5GB, cpu at 2% idle.

        actually, you probably had far more usable. right now I have 26 megabytes "free" of 8 GB. but really, the 6288K of cached RAM (as shown in task manager) is also "free" RAM in that if a application requests it SuperFetch will give it up.

        And I could rant for hours about WindowBlinds and StarDock. While the AeroGlass solutions for XP look alright, they don't make the desktop composited, and rather leverage the SetLayeredWindowAttributes() API to make a knock off by making the transclucent. It doesn't blur it, however, which is pretty important, and either way, it doesn't make the desktop DX enabled. It uses 400MB of RAM. as I speak my dwm.exe is using 28MB.
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

        michaewlewis



          Intermediate
        • Thanked: 26
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Unknown
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #19 on: January 12, 2010, 02:48:10 PM »
        Anyone else remember when they said Windows XP was a memory hog? Back then the maximum memory you could affordably get was maybe 1gb..... Now, when you can easily put 16gb in a desktop computer, what the big deal with W7 taking up 1gb? Give it a few more years and we'll be used to 1.5gb usage and then Windows 21 (kernel 8.2) will come out, using 8gb of ram, and everyone will be longing again for the Windows 7 days.

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #20 on: January 12, 2010, 02:54:27 PM »
        Anyone else remember when they said Windows XP was a memory hog? Back then the maximum memory you could affordably get was maybe 1gb..... Now, when you can easily put 16gb in a desktop computer, what the big deal with W7 taking up 1gb? Give it a few more years and we'll be used to 1.5gb usage and then Windows 21 (kernel 8.2) will come out, using 8gb of ram, and everyone will be longing again for the Windows 7 days.

        Windows 3.1 could run with 1MB of RAM. windows 95 is RIDICULOUS and BLOATED because it <requires> at least 4MB!
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

        patio

        • Moderator


        • Genius
        • Maud' Dib
        • Thanked: 1769
          • Yes
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 7
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #21 on: January 12, 2010, 02:57:33 PM »
        Quote
        Windows 3.1 could run with 1MB of RAM. windows 95 is RIDICULOUS and BLOATED because it <requires> at least 4MB!

         ;D       ;D         ;D

        So true...and not that long ago either.

         ;)
        " Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined. "

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #22 on: January 12, 2010, 04:15:55 PM »
        and have you installed Office 4.3? like, what kind of program needs 90 megabytes of disk space? Microsoft is AWFUL and MAKES BLOATWARE ALL the time! I mean, really, why else would the fdisk on DOS 6 be bigger then the one that came with DOS 3, huh? Why!?

        "Because it adds support for INT13H drive access and adds support for drives larger then 40MB?"

        Nonsense! Nonsense! It's because it's a conspiracy to take up more space! they are in league with hard drive vendors! I prefer not to go with Microsoft's bloatware, I instead prefer to have 400MB of RAM consumed by a third party, stardock application with known stability issues, and subsequently I will blame all crashes that are most certainly caused by it on MS too, just because. I mean, really, there is no reason for kernel32.dll to be larger in windows vista then it is in windows 95, I mean, they could easily add the thousands of features they have added to it in the meantime without making the file larger!

        It's actually a interesting pattern. When MS makes something bigger, no matter then amount, it doesn't appear to matter how much better it is, it's still bloat. This is a most curious scenario stemming from confusion over what exactly "bloat" is. I mean, would you call a feature you use every single day "bloat"? Would you prefer, instead, to use some esoteric drawn out method to perform the exact same thing? I mean, sure, it takes longer, but it's streamlined because there is no bloat-y menu option. It's curious how people are quick to exclaim how bloated something is (almost 100% of the time it's a MS product), and yet cannot, after questioning, really define what bloat is nor what part of the product is bloat, it's just a baseless claim based on observations by half-wits who enjoy looking at wave files in notepad seeking evidence of wrongdoing by third party's to microsoft, and somehow coming to the glorious conclusion that MS is also using this "pirated" software. It's geniuses like that, which lack any sort of understanding about even how coffee is brewed in the software industry somehow standing on a soapbox making claims as if they actually understood the difference between a apartment threaded and a free-threaded COM component that annoy me. And people actually believe these people, which I find even more unbelievable. It's like the people saying that "windows is full of bugs" and then when asked for a single example quote a bug in something like lotus notes or something equally stupid.
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

        Kurtiskain



          Mentor

          Thanked: 58
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • Yes
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Expert
        • OS: Windows 10
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #23 on: January 13, 2010, 06:23:03 PM »
        Then get another 4 gigs. ;D

        My boards max is 4GB  :'( and I'm running 32-bit ;)

        Actually, it is. It's called Superfetch.

        See, Vista/7 don't leave unused RAM... well, unused. It's no good. why have 8GB of RAM when you only use that last memory stick when you load up 15 copies of AutoCAD? Waste of money.

        So Unused memory is used to Cache data- anything else requests RAM, and if there isn't any available, Superfetch yields some of it's cache RAM.
        2.1. Directsound works fine for me; and I did have access to a few extra sets of speakers to test out, couldn't find any problems; only had them for a day or so, though.

        games are able to detect and use EAX 5.0 just fine.

        That being said, MY X-Fi actually has a X-Fi chip (extremeGamer) ; the X-Fi extreme Audio does not, it's purely software emulation. This might also explain why you have higher processor usage. (in fact, what you have is no better hardware-wise then an Audigy SE, which also didn't have the audigy chip) I believe MS made a few changes starting with vista with regards to host-based processing within drivers; which might explain the higher CPU consumption.

        actually, you probably had far more usable. right now I have 26 megabytes "free" of 8 GB. but really, the 6288K of cached RAM (as shown in task manager) is also "free" RAM in that if a application requests it SuperFetch will give it up.

        And I could rant for hours about WindowBlinds and StarDock. While the AeroGlass solutions for XP look alright, they don't make the desktop composited, and rather leverage the SetLayeredWindowAttributes() API to make a knock off by making the transclucent. It doesn't blur it, however, which is pretty important, and either way, it doesn't make the desktop DX enabled. It uses 400MB of RAM. as I speak my dwm.exe is using 28MB.



        It is true that the X-Fi Extreme Audio card is not a true X-Fi card, though I got it for $45 NZD, and the X-Fi Titanium was selling for $150 NZD, it does what I want it to do anyhow.

        EAX or Driectsound3D do not work under Vista/Windows 7...even creative says so:
        http://apcmag.com/creative_puts_eax_back_into_vista.htm

        it is to do with the way the driver stack was re-written, and that the way Direct Sound no longer supports it, and to get the 3D positioning and EAX effects in games and applications you need ALchemy to convert the Driect Sound commands into OpenAL so that the card can process them.

        I tried ALchemy and found this to be true, Fallout 3, with it turned off, I have no clue where a voice is coming from, be it left or right, behind or forward.

        ALchemy turned on, I can tell where they are just by the audio positioning, i can tell if a person is to my right, left or behind me. EAX reverb and environment effects came back too.....but the game simply crashes in places with a high amount of 'voices'.

        And okay, so I admit I was wrong with the RAM and Window Blinds, I found that the indexing service was to blame for the CPU usage though :) What about using the patched Uxtheme.dll? it is still using the original XP theme engine, while giving nice shiny black or dark red themes :D


        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1140
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 11
        Re: Vista and Windows 7
        « Reply #24 on: January 13, 2010, 07:17:59 PM »
        I used a patched uxtheme myself; used the Royal Noir theme.... or maybe it wasn't patched and the theme was signed.... I don't really remember. I've patched it before, though.

        EAX works for me in crysis, Quake 2:Evolved, ioQuake3, and gzdoom (although I don't know what tech gzdoom uses, it just has a "3d sound" option. I know that quake 2:evolved uses OpenAL for sound, as well, since without it it doesn't have any, heh.

        I was going to say half-life 2 worked with 3d sound, but it doesn't appear to have that as an option.

        I find the article interesting; since it was only relatively recently that the audio stack was even put into kernel mode, for speed reasons.

        Quote
        But it was completely rewritten, so drivers that took advantage of features in the older audio stack, such as Direct Sound's 3D hardware acceleration,

        Nothing has changed.

        Windows 2000 dsound.dll: (I was going to use XP but... meh.

        Quote
        Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 9.00.21022.08
        Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.


        Dump of file dsound.dll

        File Type: DLL

          Section contains the following exports for DSOUND.dll

            00000000 characteristics
            38178888 time date stamp Wed Oct 27 16:19:36 1999
                0.00 version
                   1 ordinal base
                   8 number of functions
                   8 number of names

            ordinal hint RVA      name

                  6    0 0001F53F DirectSoundCaptureCreate
                  7    1 0001FA97 DirectSoundCaptureEnumerateA
                  8    2 0001FAAB DirectSoundCaptureEnumerateW
                  1    3 0001F46F DirectSoundCreate
                  2    4 0001FA6F DirectSoundEnumerateA
                  3    5 0001FA83 DirectSoundEnumerateW
                  4    6 00025EBE DllCanUnloadNow
                  5    7 00025D40 DllGetClassObject

          Summary

                3000 .data
                4000 .reloc
                1000 .rsrc
               44000 .text

        Windows Vista C:\windows\system32\dsound.dll:

        Quote
        Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 9.00.21022.08
        Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.


        Dump of file dsound.dll

        File Type: DLL

          Section contains the following exports for DSOUND.dll

            00000000 characteristics
            49E0223D time date stamp Fri Apr 10 21:53:17 2009
                0.00 version
                   1 ordinal base
                  12 number of functions
                  12 number of names

            ordinal hint RVA      name

                  6    0 00028364 DirectSoundCaptureCreate
                 12    1 00028412 DirectSoundCaptureCreate8
                  7    2 00028A6E DirectSoundCaptureEnumerateA
                  8    3 00028A8B DirectSoundCaptureEnumerateW
                  1    4 00017A61 DirectSoundCreate
                 11    5 00006D48 DirectSoundCreate8
                  2    6 00028A34 DirectSoundEnumerateA
                  3    7 00028A51 DirectSoundEnumerateW
                 10    8 000284CC DirectSoundFullDuplexCreate
                  4    9 0002C6D3 DllCanUnloadNow
                  5    A 000186D4 DllGetClassObject
                  9    B 00028200 GetDeviceID

          Summary

               26000 .data
                3000 .reloc
                1000 .rsrc
               44000 .text
                1000 RT_CODE



        what's critical here is the DllCanUnloadNow and DllGetClassObject; this marks these two dlls as COM components. COM components are always user-mode.

        My point? DirectSound3d has been in user mode all along; meanwhile, with w2k and XP, the Kernel MIXER is what was in the kernel. What interfaces with the kernel-mode mixer? the drivers. Basically, the article is wrong about it.

        They say that it goes Application->Kernel mixer->Direct Sound->Driver.
        but what is actually happening is it goes Application->DirectSound API->Driver->Kernel Mixer

        In fact, this is essentially part of the directsound API; also, Directsound3d includes emulation of 3d sound hardware where none is available. Guess what DirectSound asks to see if it's available? The driver. Because that is the next layer down. If the manufacturer is to lazy to create a proper driver, they might you know, simply return that it doesn't have that capability.

        Of additional note, only <some> of the kernel-mode sound architecture was moved to User-mode; the main goal of which was to make it so that failed sound driver installs or simply crappy buggy drivers won't cause a Blue screen error, and so you can switch Sound drivers without a reboot.

        Additionally, switching some of the low-level stuff to user-mode meant that a lot of the requests made by applications could be services without switching to kernel mode; simple stuff like asking for the capabilities of the hardware and so forth no longer require a jump to Ring 0 code. Also, I might point out that the previous mixers use 16-bit Integer arithmetic; the new architecture uses 32-bit floating point, which improves accuracy and fidelity across the board.

        It's a bit unfortunate, but as a result Vista's audio stack is not hardware accelerated. Of course, neither is Windows XP's by default, but when you add hardware like an Audigy 2 or X-Fi sound card (that has a DSP) and the requisite drivers, you basically hardware-accelerate Windows XP's audio. Vista doesn't really work this way, and though the software audio is dramatically improved, you can't just accelerate it by adding a sound card with hardware acceleration. Truthfully, this is primarily a concern of games, which we hope won't be affected much. The only company making mass-market audio cards with hardware acceleration is Creative, and they're doing a good job of promoting OpenAL as the audio standard for games. OpenAL drivers under Vista should allow for hardware acceleration of 3D audio every bit as good as the latest DirectX + EAX. This is the important point; when you were using XP, your 3d sound was never hardware accelerated to begin with; it's always been a emulation.

        So, now you get crashes in certain 3d-sound modes. This is curious; and most notably does not involve any windows architecture change at all- your 3d-sound is still emulated by the creative drivers; it passes the "emulation" to the mixer and that get's output. since that passed stream is flat (no 3d calculation, no voices,etc) then it's logical to assume that your crashes are occuring because of creative's sloppy work with the emulation.

        if it's any consolation; the driver works fine for any number of voices if it doesn't have to fall-back on emulation and has the actual hardware to work with.

        As a closing remark, it's curious how the article you linked was posted 4 days before windows vista was released.

        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.