speed of vista

[Guest]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Thanks.




I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

 

[Rich]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Thanks.




I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

I installed Vista Home on my laptop and I notice that everything takes
longer to load but after that it runs fine.

AMD 1.4 Ghz
512 MB ram
60MB hard drive.

My laptop is rated 1 due to the on board graphics that I can't upgrade, but
this shouldn't affect loading of applications just their display?

Rich

 

[Richard Urban]

Once I uninstalled the improperly written program I put on my Vista system,
Vista is faster that XP (dual boot - same hardware used).

It's too bad that some who like to rag on Vista users refuse to believe
this.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Jon]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Thanks.




I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

Impossible to say. If you've neglected your current XP installation, then
it'll run faster.

As with XP, you can enhance performance by turning off unnecessary services,
scheduled tasks, startup programs etc. The usual rules apply.

 

[John E]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Thanks.




I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

I have not noticed a significant difference between Windows XP and Vista
(64 - although the same applies to Vista 32). A benchmarking program
(http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm) confirms that there is little
difference.

System:

Intel Pentium D 940 3.2GHz
2 GB of Ram
6800 Nvidia Graphics card (Asus EN6800GT) 256MB.
380GB RAID hard drive.

John

 

[Eric J. Hoffman]

Mine is faster than XP as well....Core 2 Duo.

Once I uninstalled the improperly written program I put on my Vista
system, Vista is faster that XP (dual boot - same hardware used).

It's too bad that some who like to rag on Vista users refuse to believe
this.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[R. McCarty]

My Sony Vaio notebook scores 76 points higher on PCPitStop's tests
using Vista than when running Windows Media Center. That said, the
overall perception of speed differences between XP and Vista isn't all
that noticeable. The enhanced caching with Vista does seem to improve
the application start times.

 

[Adam Albright]

Once I uninstalled the improperly written program I put on my Vista system,
Vista is faster that XP (dual boot - same hardware used).

It's too bad that some who like to rag on Vista users refuse to believe
this.

I keep wondering how in the hell you got to be a MVP.

 

[kirk jim]

Expect an at least 30 % degrade in speeds of windows itself and
applications...

only start up and shutdown will be faster in vista....

 

[Larry Maturo]

Hi Kirk,

Wouldn't that depend on your system? I don't notice any difference on
my Sony laptop with 1 Gig of ram. I imagine with half that much ram
your observatioin might well be true. I haven't compared mem usage
of Vista vs XP, but I suspect that Vista needs more ram for itself than
XP does, thus leaving less ram for applications to use than XP would.
However, with a gig, there is apparently enough ram for everything.

-- Larry Maturo

 

[Mike Gould]

John,

I found the install to be extremely slow. On a dual core Opteron 175 with 4
Gig of RAM it took 3 hours to install a upgrade using Vista Business.

After upgrading I found that it was very slow and many times it would just
freeze for 20-30 seconds or more. As a developer this was totally
unacceptable. I was just about ready to throw the darn machine out the
window. Then I started to get a steady beep from the motherboard. I
changed out the RAM with some slower but still usable ram and still had the
problem. I then switched out the video card Nvidia 7600 GT with a 7600 GS
card. That took care of the video problems and things ran a little faster.

I still noticed that it would slow down from time to time. When I looked at
the device manager, I kept seeing a USB device that it didn't recongnize and
would continue to search for the "best drivers". I decided to unplug all of
my USB devices and reboot. Viola, my system acted like it should. I then
plugged in each device one at a time to see if it was recognized. I finally
found the problem device (a 7 in 1 card reader) and left it off. After a
few other tweaks my system is running as well as my machine loaded with XP.

I do think that Vista is more sensitive to device drivers than previous
versions of Windows but once I got them straightened out it seems to work
very well.

I personally would increase the amount of RAM on your machine. Vista is
pretty memory intenstive and 1 Gig is probably on the low side.

Now that I've got things sorted out, I find that Vista Business is just as
fast as Windows XP SP2.

Best Regards,

Michael Gould

 

[Guest]

In general:
Make use of the Ready Boost! It prioritizes what programs will be
"pre-loaded" into memory during reboots making load times faster for the
programs you routinely use.
Other programs will suffer some degradation in speed during loading, but
operation will be the same. (I think this has to do with Vista trying to
anticipate what you will want to use, preloading memory and then you select
something else.)
I've got all the bells and whistles turned on and overall believe it to be
running the same as XP where I had most of them turned off. (I'm a bit slow
to change things because of the number of problems I've encountered getting
it running. But, a week later, it's stable and as I get the hang of it, I've
been customizing.)

Lots of things feel slow simply because you keep getting distracted with
prompts:
e.g. Three prompts to delete a file.
Four prompts to install an ActiveX component in IE7.
They are getting less and less as the system gets where it is supposed
to be.

 

[Justin]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

Of course it will depend on the hardware and the drivers written for it.
For myself, I have 5 machines in a business setting of which only two of
them run "faster" then XP. The other three are about the same.

My home machine runs MUCH faster then XP. This is based on a standard
installation of XP and Vista. Some would argue that XP completely stripped
runs much faster then Vista. Which is absurd to compare unless you also
completely strip Vista (which I've not done).

The only ding on my home machine is that there are no Creative Sound Blaster
drivers that are decent

 

[dreascene]

must admit i see no difference in my system (faster one)

core 2 duo over clocked to 3.5GHZ each from 1.86
nvidia 8800 768mb
1TB HDD
22" lcd
4gb ram

 

[Steve Thackery]

I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

As you've got 1G of RAM it will be much the same, possibly slightly faster
when itt's sorted out the Superfetch cache. Machines with less than 1G will
almost certainly be slower.

Thack

 

[kirk jim]

enough with this ram illusion! Ram is not magic! information must be sent to
it
from slower components (like hard disks) and through pipelines!

I have tested vista on many different computers from 512 mb to 1.25 gb ram.

I have done more than 15 installations of this peice of trash called Vista.

Vista is slower ok? If you could have 2 machines next to each other and
pressed the same buttons
you would see what I mean... the XP machine would be so must faster you
would think that
it was another cpu doing the work.

Feel free to do your own tests in a scientific manner though.. not saying
that "it just seems fast"
Because its not!

Vista is slower by design...because it has an incredible amount of crap
working in the background.
By bad design I must add!

 

[kirk jim]

dual boot it with XP, then take a stopwatch and even videotape various
launches and installations of applications, time them write them on Excel
and make a graph...

then you will see how much slower vista really is! Because IT IS!!!!!

You are living in a illusion.... your machine is working 20% - 30% slower
with vista.

 

[kirk jim]

My home machine runs MUCH faster then XP.

I bet you print "vista" labels for all your food and glue them on to the
products you have in
your refrigerator...

Vista Jam, Vista ketchup, Vista baloney....etc Anything that is junkfood and
has artificial coloring and flavoring, you turn into vista chow.

Yes siree, Im sure you eat lots of Vista baloney (Bologna)... anything to
keep that brain working
at a crawling pace! (Just like vista works... you have to keep those 2
synchronized ya know!)

 

[Consultant]

he is mvp on command prompt

I keep wondering how in the hell you got to be a MVP.

 

[Zim Babwe]

Idiot.
You are stupid

Expect an at least 30 % degrade in speeds of windows itself and
applications...

only start up and shutdown will be faster in vista....