Donald said:
Here are the ONLY "fixes" for "Vista's slowness":
1) Purchase a newer machine.
Ok but newer machine does not mean you have to run Vista on it. Why get
a newer, faster machine just to get Vista to run fine, when it seems to
infinately more logical to get XP, get any of the thousands of
compatible hardwares (ie new graphics card, multiple core CPU setup,
etc) and enjoy a much faster OS then you could ever get with Vista ?!
2) Make sure this machine is "Vista compatible"
"Vista compatible" ??? Why does it feel like things have taken a big
step backwards? In this day and age, this SHOULD NOT be an issue... so
wtf?
3) Make sure this machine has a new Core2 or Core2 Duo processor.
Just to run adequately and not so sluggly... tell me again why we should
get new PC's, just to get back where we were before, in terms of how
fast the comp feels. Why not just use XP on new hardware. The dual and
quad cores have all been tested on XP so "compatibity" isn't an issue
like it is with Vista, so it really makes no sense to just drop XP for
Vista.
4) Make sure this machine has a minimum of 2GB DDR 667mhz memory.
Which would make XP fly while bringing Vista up to par with the current
P4 (~2-3gz) or equivilent machine most have already.
5) Make sure this machine has a minimum of a 250GB 7200rpm SATA-II
Hd, of which at least HALF is used for Vista.
Vista really needs 125 GB to run? I doubt it as I'm pretty sure it needs
at least 10gb for the OS, which is rather hefty if you ask me. What
exactly in Vista needs all that space?
6) Make sure this machine has a minimum of a DirectX9c compatible
video card with a minimum of 256MB graphics memory ON THE CARD.
And make DOUBLY-sure that this video card does NOT use "shared memory"
of
ANY kind.
Which I think would serve one better on a XP setup instead, unless you
like having a good chunk used up by the 3D driven Aero Glass
desktop/skin. It's nice to look at, don't get me wrong, but if you're
looking to have a new FAST machine then Vista IMHO is just looking the
wrong way.
7) Install Vista CLEAN (on a freshly-formatted HD).
Or XP Pro for that matter.
8) Make sure your BIOS is the LATEST one provided by your motherboard
manufacturer.
That is always good advise. Too bad so many makes are lagging behind on
Vista drivers.
9) Make sure ALL drivers are VISTA driver-model drivers, NOT XP or
earlier.
More unnecessary breakages in Vista it looks like... if the OS was
written properly drivers would not be an issue right now. Vista for all
intents and purposes uses what amounts to an updated NT (2000 -> XP ->
Vista) core... yes there are some of you who'll say... "no it's a brand
new rewritten core.. blah blah"... no, the core wasn't completely
rewritten, just modified a bit.
But in the end it's the next iteration of the NT core. They just, for
once, created a rather pretty front end to it all. In fact I'd wager the
bulk of the major rewrites were the changed dialogs and the new Areo
theme and such.
Just look around the whole system and you'll notice a whole slew
familiar boxes and compents and the registry itself will appear largely
familiar to anyone who has regualrly spent time there in XP amd prevous
Windows systems.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I conclude in saying that Vista, while looking pretty and even may
contain some nice ideas and all, is just too heavy on ssytem resources,
making it look IMHO another excuse to get people to buy new hardware
just to alieviate the sluggishness, rather than actually slimming
windows down, and allowing for a mush faster expience on the same
hardware, of which you can only take FULL advantage of in the fast lane
with XP or 2003 (or even 2000 to an extent.)
Again, Vista, while looking nice and even futuristic, in many ways feels
like a step back.
