Advice to those considering changing from XP to Vista

[John Wesley Asquith]

I'd also check to make sure your anti-virus software isn't causing the
problem. I've found that Norton can screw up any computer and make even
the ones stilll function run like molasses at -272K.

 

[keepout]

"it works on my machine"
That statement proves that it can work.
The OP made a broad statement that obviously is not as broadly true as
the OPs statements would suggest.

Another statement you probably do not like, "people need to do their
homework" before spending their $ to upgrade to Windows Vista.
Just like they need to do similar before making any purchase.
Doing the homework in advance can help find and resolve issues before
they are problems.
Doing the homework may also help determine that the investment is not
appropriate at this time.

I did my homework and as a result, Windows Vista works well on two of
my older computers.
One a laptop and the other a desktop.
Other than memory, the newest component is a nearly 2 year old video
card in the desktop.

The thing is with Vista, did you start from scratch and reformat the system
partition, or just install Vista where XP existed with the upgrade option?
I suspect the upgrade option mixes parts of XP and Vista, and doesn't mixit
best.

 

[keepout]

Have you verified you do not have a hardware problem such as bad
memory or hard drive?
Beg or borrow another hard drive and reinstall on that drive and see
if the problems persist.

Are you sure there are no viruses, spyware or other malware on the
computer?

You should have a warranty, contact the manufacturer for support.
Consider returning if that is still an option.

If you're speaking to me, [I wrote the message below], Vista has been slow
since I opened the box. Slow is ALL it is. No virus, no bad hardware, no spy
ware or malware. No excuses for it being slower than XP. It's just plain slow
with UAC, and all the other security slow downs. Sheesh, start to install, and
it takes 3 seconds to ask if it's ok to do what my key press to install that
program already said.
INSTALL IT. But I have to tell the machine that I want to install that program
TWICE.

Sheesh it did it just now with daily Microsoft updates. It asked me if I wanted
to install the cumulative media center updates. Just after I hit the button
labeled INSTALL.

Vista is slow. And noting but stripping it of all software is going to make it
run any faster.
Course I could use XCPU and stick all the resource hogs on just 1 CPU.
But think about it a computer is designed to run software. It should be
designed to distribute the load efficiently enough that average use doesn't
show just how slow it really is.
I have that CPU gadget that shows load and ram use. The CPU usage is in the red
almost constantly. It goes from 0 - 10. It idles at 9. The ram idles at 50% and
above.
that gadget puts a load on the machine. slowing down everything else. It's a
fact of electronics, the higher the load, the slower [more degraded] it
operates. XCPU can distribute it, by taking stuff I use by launch and sticking
them all on CPU 1, leaving CPU 0 to run those things that SYSTEM launches.

ie: listing my folder directories. It does take awhile to list several hundred
folders. XP was slow, Vista is slower.

It doesn't take much to get the [xxx not responding] display. I can just hit
the opened page a 2nd time, and it grays the page. and adds [not responding] to
the title bar.

I don't see slow as a fixable problem as adding and using software is what
makes it slow.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:15:54 -0700, "Charles W Davis"
I wish. I've probably had this machine a month. It goes into 'xxxxx
not
responding' any time my multi tasking puts too much load on it.
It has a core 2 duo 2.8 ghz, and 2 gigs ram with a tera byte of drive
space.
Deleting from the recycle bin, takes forever. some programs take
forever to
list a folder directory, etc...

Vista is slow. nothing else you can say about it.
my 1 gig ram 3.2 ghz P4 HT was visibly faster. 3 seconds to load
photoshop 8.
16 seconds with vista.
And when the things go into 'not responding' it takes much longer.
Cause You
just have to stop what you're doing and either move onto something
else [adding
to the CPU load], or just take a break while the machine catches up
with you.

 

[keepout]

I'd also check to make sure your anti-virus software isn't causing the
problem. I've found that Norton can screw up any computer and make even
the ones stilll function run like molasses at -272K.

running the software is a function of the machine. I know that running virus
software puts a huge load on it.
Pass that enlightening piece of information on to the system designers. They
may not know that.
I use Trend virus, and I know it grabs a lot of resources.
The other option is no virus wall, and run every piece of kiddie crap that
invades the machine. slowing it down even worse.
Thing is a computer is not a Stock car where you can shave the weight by simply
running with less gas.
Though you do need to decide, if you want functions or speed. I prefer
functions. it's a machine designed to run functions. Just too bad it doesn't
have a way to distribute the load so that it can run more functions and
maintain a fast speed. 2.8 ghz is a fast speed. the XP was 3.2 ghz. still
faster.

Have you verified you do not have a hardware problem such as bad
memory or hard drive?
Beg or borrow another hard drive and reinstall on that drive and see
if the problems persist.

Are you sure there are no viruses, spyware or other malware on the
computer?

You should have a warranty, contact the manufacturer for support.
Consider returning if that is still an option.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:15:54 -0700, "Charles W Davis"
I wish. I've probably had this machine a month. It goes into 'xxxxx
not
responding' any time my multi tasking puts too much load on it.
It has a core 2 duo 2.8 ghz, and 2 gigs ram with a tera byte of drive
space.
Deleting from the recycle bin, takes forever. some programs take
forever to
list a folder directory, etc...

Vista is slow. nothing else you can say about it.
my 1 gig ram 3.2 ghz P4 HT was visibly faster. 3 seconds to load
photoshop 8.
16 seconds with vista.
And when the things go into 'not responding' it takes much longer.
Cause You
just have to stop what you're doing and either move onto something
else [adding
to the CPU load], or just take a break while the machine catches up
with you.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

My older computers are faster than your computers appear and they both
have Windows Vista and have been running well since November.
That is why I suggested it may be a hardware problem or a bad
installation.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

Have you verified you do not have a hardware problem such as bad
memory or hard drive?
Beg or borrow another hard drive and reinstall on that drive and see
if the problems persist.

Are you sure there are no viruses, spyware or other malware on the
computer?

You should have a warranty, contact the manufacturer for support.
Consider returning if that is still an option.

If you're speaking to me, [I wrote the message below], Vista has been
slow
since I opened the box. Slow is ALL it is. No virus, no bad hardware,
no spy
ware or malware. No excuses for it being slower than XP. It's just
plain slow
with UAC, and all the other security slow downs. Sheesh, start to
install, and
it takes 3 seconds to ask if it's ok to do what my key press to
install that
program already said.
INSTALL IT. But I have to tell the machine that I want to install that
program
TWICE.

Sheesh it did it just now with daily Microsoft updates. It asked me if
I wanted
to install the cumulative media center updates. Just after I hit the
button
labeled INSTALL.

Vista is slow. And noting but stripping it of all software is going to
make it
run any faster.
Course I could use XCPU and stick all the resource hogs on just 1 CPU.
But think about it a computer is designed to run software. It should
be
designed to distribute the load efficiently enough that average use
doesn't
show just how slow it really is.
I have that CPU gadget that shows load and ram use. The CPU usage is
in the red
almost constantly. It goes from 0 - 10. It idles at 9. The ram idles
at 50% and
above.
that gadget puts a load on the machine. slowing down everything else.
It's a
fact of electronics, the higher the load, the slower [more degraded]
it
operates. XCPU can distribute it, by taking stuff I use by launch and
sticking
them all on CPU 1, leaving CPU 0 to run those things that SYSTEM
launches.

ie: listing my folder directories. It does take awhile to list several
hundred
folders. XP was slow, Vista is slower.

It doesn't take much to get the [xxx not responding] display. I can
just hit
the opened page a 2nd time, and it grays the page. and adds [not
responding] to
the title bar.

I don't see slow as a fixable problem as adding and using software is
what
makes it slow.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:15:54 -0700, "Charles W Davis"
I wish. I've probably had this machine a month. It goes into 'xxxxx
not
responding' any time my multi tasking puts too much load on it.
It has a core 2 duo 2.8 ghz, and 2 gigs ram with a tera byte of drive
space.
Deleting from the recycle bin, takes forever. some programs take
forever to
list a folder directory, etc...

Vista is slow. nothing else you can say about it.
my 1 gig ram 3.2 ghz P4 HT was visibly faster. 3 seconds to load
photoshop 8.
16 seconds with vista.
And when the things go into 'not responding' it takes much longer.
Cause You
just have to stop what you're doing and either move onto something
else [adding
to the CPU load], or just take a break while the machine catches up
with you.

 

[Rock]

"it works on my machine"
That statement proves that it can work.
The OP made a broad statement that obviously is not as broadly true as
the OPs statements would suggest.

Another statement you probably do not like, "people need to do their
homework" before spending their $ to upgrade to Windows Vista.
Just like they need to do similar before making any purchase.
Doing the homework in advance can help find and resolve issues before
they are problems.
Doing the homework may also help determine that the investment is not
appropriate at this time.

I did my homework and as a result, Windows Vista works well on two of
my older computers.
One a laptop and the other a desktop.
Other than memory, the newest component is a nearly 2 year old video
card in the desktop.

The thing is with Vista, did you start from scratch and reformat the
system
partition, or just install Vista where XP existed with the upgrade option
?
I suspect the upgrade option mixes parts of XP and Vista, and doesn't mix
it
best.

Mixes XP and Vista? No. The Vista installation is different. It is not a
file by file copy, it is laid down as an image, so there is no residuals
from XP left behind.

In an upgrade scenario where programs are migrated, that is where the issues
arise. The programs installed in Vista are moved to a different portion of
the drive, the Vista image is laid down and then the programs brought in.
It is this installation of the programs from their installed status in XP
that can be problematic.