another unhappy vista user

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

just installed vista home basic and it is painfully slow. I am running an AMD
athlon64 3000+ on an asus K8V SE Deluxe board with 512 ram. The time to
launch programs and navagate the web is not satisfactory at all. What should
I look at first?
 
steve said:
just installed vista home basic and it is painfully slow. I am running an AMD
athlon64 3000+ on an asus K8V SE Deluxe board with 512 ram. The time to
launch programs and navagate the web is not satisfactory at all. What should
I look at first?
Click to expand...

You need to up your RAM to at least a gig, although 2 gigs will work better.

Alias
 
steve said:
just installed vista home basic and it is painfully slow. I am running an
AMD
athlon64 3000+ on an asus K8V SE Deluxe board with 512 ram. The time to
launch programs and navagate the web is not satisfactory at all. What
should
I look at first?
Click to expand...

It has to be the RAM. I moved up from 2GB to 4GB and it DOES make a helluva
difference from that as well!!!!

I've worked on Dell kit with 512MB and its a disgrace....
 
steve said:
just installed vista home basic and it is painfully slow. I am running an AMD
athlon64 3000+ on an asus K8V SE Deluxe board with 512 ram. The time to
launch programs and navagate the web is not satisfactory at all. What should
I look at first?
Click to expand...

Although your computer meets the technical minimum system requirements
for Vista, in Real Life(tm) it doesn't have nearly enough RAM. Although
your processor isn't the fastest one, it will work. The RAM needs to be
increased to at least 1GB, preferably 2GB. Also stay away from bloated
programs produced by McAfee and Norton for your security. Recommended
antivirus programs are NOD32, Kaspersky, and Avast (free).


Malke
 
(-:

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
First Double or Quadruple your ram. 512 is OK, but 1GB is really a sweeter
spot, 2GB is a little overkill unless you're doing some heavy lifting like
Video games, movie editing, or just like to run about 50 apps at a time.

On the cheap, you can get a 1GB flash drive and use the ready boost tech to
help with your performance a little.
 
Malke said:
Although your computer meets the technical minimum system requirements for
Vista, in Real Life(tm) it doesn't have nearly enough RAM. Although your
processor isn't the fastest one, it will work. The RAM needs to be
increased to at least 1GB, preferably 2GB. Also stay away from bloated
programs produced by McAfee and Norton for your security. Recommended
antivirus programs are NOD32, Kaspersky, and Avast (free).


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Click to expand...

In addition, the Foxit Reader (3.9MB) http://www.foxitsoftware.com/ Secunia,
a Danish Corporation, that collects and distributes advisories regarding
security vulnerabilities in computer software currently has no advisories
regarding Foxit.
vs Adobe Reader 8 (15.7MB) with one known security vulnerability.
 
Charles W Davis said:
In addition, the Foxit Reader (3.9MB) http://www.foxitsoftware.com/ Secunia,
a Danish Corporation, that collects and distributes advisories regarding
security vulnerabilities in computer software currently has no advisories
regarding Foxit.
vs Adobe Reader 8 (15.7MB) with one known security vulnerability.
Click to expand...
 
Charles W Davis said:
In addition, the Foxit Reader (3.9MB) http://www.foxitsoftware.com/ Secunia,
a Danish Corporation, that collects and distributes advisories regarding
security vulnerabilities in computer software currently has no advisories
regarding Foxit.
vs Adobe Reader 8 (15.7MB) with one known security vulnerability.
Click to expand...
 
No kidding... I have been ranting about the slowness of Vista Da Monster for
months now.

Vista is 20-60 % slower according to what application you are using,
compared to xp

Its a monster that even ram will not help much... the people who say
differently
must use only notepad internet explorer and solitaire of course, because the
sluggyness
of vista is very apparent when you try to do professional work using adobe
and corel products.
Im not kidding.. its so slow that I diched Vista and switched to XP to get
my work finished!

Basically VISTA STINKS BIGTIME and I cannot use it under a production
enviorment even though I tried.
Its just too slow... and has nothing to offer more than XP in such a case...

if you want vista to be snappy as XP you should ask santa clause for a 8
Core cpu ...
that should be out around christmas of 2007, but even then... XP would be
faster on that same hardware.
This defies another LIE that the vistaboys postulate: that vista is faster
on new hardware.... geee that is smart!
Of course an OS is faster on new hardware.. .put XP on that same hardware
and it will perform faster than vista could.

My advice? Get rid of vista!
 
I have to tell you that what you are saying is misleading big time!!!

there is absolutely NO difference in vista itself if you have 2 or 4gb of
ram!

How did you come to this horribly distorted conclusion????

The only scenario that you would be able to say that vista is faster
comparing 2 -4 gb ram
would be if you would be using many heavy duty programs...and THOSE would
need the extra ram.

I have seen that after the 1 gb threshold, it doesn't matter how much ram
you add, there is no difference
in vista's performance. Instead of spreading such misconceptions why don't
you install a firkin ram meter
that will show you whats going on on your PC??? You will see clearly that
vista will never
use more than 1 gb ram for itself....

I suggest you install samurize from samurize.com and learn how to create
various meters, so you will start to get a feeling
of whats going on inside your PC. In fact I suggest that to ALL vistaboys
who claim false things
because they prefer to IMAGINE vista is faster than XP.

They like to imagine vista is faster.. probably because they had to do a
clean install vista and they compared that
with a 1-2 year install of XP, making them to falsely believe that vista is
faster....

NEWBIE'S!!!! I would suggest to them all, and you, to stop getting carried
away by brainwashing information
and add METERS that show every aspect of whats going on inside your
computer... ONLY THEN
will you truly understand the reaction of an OS.

I have been doing this for years, and because of that I have an extradinary
feeling of how a PC performs
 
You do realize that just because you see something, it does not imply
that everybody sees it. I have Vista installed on my laptop with 1 gig
of ram, and I don't notice it being any slower than the XP I had on it
before. I used XP on it for about a year before installing Vista. Now,
I'm not saying this is typical for everyone, just that on my machine its
not noticabley slower than XP, which is enough to prove that your
contention is a flawed theory only, and not a fact, since it can't explain
every case. Note, I am not saying you didn't experience Vista being
slow, just that its not that way for everyone.

-- Larry Maturo
 
that meter only shows you the ram at the particuar instant.. however there
are ways to show the progress of the
increase or decrease of the ram needed with time in the form of a graph..
vista has its own special resource meters
too

I mentioned samurize because its very powerful if you learn how to use it
 
of course I realize that.. it is because you cannot compare it with a
identical machine right next to the vista machine
but has XP, so you can compare the 2...

However I have done that... and there is a big difference..

I understand what you mean since for example I go to another computer that
has a slower cpu,
I don't notice much difference.. but when I put the 2 next to each other
THEN I saw that one was really faster than the other.

It is not me who has a misconception of reality, rather it is the vista
users who cannot see all that is.
 
Tiberius said:
However I have done that... and there is a big difference..
Click to expand...

You speak only for yourself and the computer(s) you're using.
Others, like myself see Vista, in a dual boot situation with XP, being
as fast and faster than XP depending upon the selected task.

So in the future, when you post your anti-Vista, pro XP diatribe crap,
please qualify your statement with a disclaimer, ok.
Thanks.
Frank
 
But I do not handle only computers that are mine...

Frank what I am saying is true.... there is no doubt about it. Vista is
slower than XP on the same hardware.
What you are observing is a misconception.. a distortion in your perception.
You are not measuring something correctly.

And I can prove it! I can prove it 100 %. I just dont get into the hassle to
do it...

You CAN say however that its ok if its slower because the cpu power is
increasing in a exponential rate
and the extra bulk offers some additional functions that might not be
available with XP.

In 5 years we will have 100 core cpu's.... cpu power will not be an issue
anymore, ram will be very very cheap.

In that context I agree.... but it is not true that vista is faster or even
as fast as XP.

We have to face the truth...
 
Back
Top