not a chance. 1s have much better control of their anger than 2s and 8s. they don't go around choking people senselessly
generalization much? of course there can be 1s who lose their tempers and perform senseless violence, as there can be 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, 8s and 9s who do the same.
that said, usually vader's violence was not senseless. in 'the empire strikes back' it was clear that he killed people for incompetence primarily. but it wasn't simply incompetence or failure alone, but also because of his judgment of the person's character and whether he respected that person as someone who was in general, competent.
in 'a new hope' vader seemed to have a crew that he could work with on his star destroyer. the crew treats him with total respect and doesn't make presumptions. there's never a scene of him killing any of them. when he gives an order it is simply followed without excuses or obsequious attempts to somehow impress him. this is how vader imo likes things to run.
unfortunately, in 'empire strikes back' he is no longer on that star destroyer, but is on the command ship. so he has to "break in" the crew.
before vader killed admiral ozzel he told him that he'd failed him (vader) for the last time. vader wanted to enter the hoth system in secret so the rebels wouldn't be forewarned and begin evacuation. he thought that ozzel pulled out of light speed too close to the system and so the command ship was detected by the rebels. he had probably already judged ozzel as an incompetent worthless officer who couldn't properly carry out orders, but he was willing to give him just a few chances to improve himself. but after enough fails (say 2 or 3), ozzel is out of chances, so vader kills him. ozzel, and other officers, are probably expected to be psychic and know the way vader wants things done, which to vader these ways would just be obvious and he shouldn't have to explain. obviously, vader wouldn't want to be detected by the rebels--attacks work better when the enemy is caught off guard and he doesn't want to give luke (and his friends) time to escape. that ozzel can't see this as important is just another symptom of his idiocy. final ruling: "he is as clumsy as he is stupid."
the next person vader killed in 'empire strikes back' was captain needa who failed to find him the millennium falcon and instead apologized for not finding it. vader doesn't care how difficult it was to find the ship, or how unmaneuverable the asteroid field was, he expects his orders followed and he doesn't want excuses or apologies. captain needa was judged incompetent even if his character wasn't terribly offensive. had needa not personally apologized to vader, he may have actually survived. but that he valued this matter of honorably taking responsibility more than just getting his job done, revealed him as another incompetent.
at the end of 'empire strikes back' vader didn't kill admiral piett when the falcon got away. i think that vader generally had regarded piett as someone who strives to do a good/efficient job and as generally competent already. piett's character also does not bother vader. piett isn't disrespectful, arrogant, or image-focused, or a whiner, or someone who offers up excuses or apologies. in 'return of the jedi' piett seems to work quite well with vader and is perhaps similar to the high-ranking survivors of vader's original crew in 'a new hope.'
then there's that guy vader started choking in 'a new hope' on the death star. i think vader found that guy incredibly ignorant, stupid, arrogant, and disrespectful. he didn't like him and wanted to basically prove how wrong he was, or show him the error of his ways. but since tarkin was in charge and tarkin told vader to stop, he stopped.
really, i think the only totally senseless and emo choking was when anakin choked padme in 'revenge of the sith.' and that character of anakin, imo, is poorly done indeed and i can hardly see him maturing into darth vader in his later years.
so in short, vader is hyper-critical, intolerant, and expects his officers to live up to almost impossible standards. he finds the characters of some people personally offensive. an officer may not be "perfect" enough either in character or deed/competence or both. he kills those who fail to meet his standards of character, respectful obedience and competence. he doesn't tolerate excuses or reasons about why someone failed to meet his expectations. he sees things in a very black and white way.
to me, this sounds like an overly harsh and critical 1.
